1
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 17-03-1997 NAME: K E THOBA
W THOMPSON
J W MAKOM
DAY: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink, are we ready to proceed?
MR BRINK: Yes, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman the first application is that of K E Thoba, W Thompson, J W Makom. They are asking for amnesty in respect of various accounts of assault and crimen injuria. They are present but I think they should be seated at the applicants' table. They are represented by Mr Hole, who is a local attorney.
I understand that the applicants are Mr Thoba, sitting at the right hand side of the table which is virtually on your left, Mr Thompson is in the middle and Mr Makom is on the left hand side of the table.
Mr Chairman in regard to the victims, I understand that Mr Simandla is present, he is one of the victims and also Ms Msutwana. There are two other victims, Ms Maqana and Ms Nomoy, who were involved in various incidents. All efforts to trace these two people have been unsuccessful and therefore they are not here today. Mr Hole might like to proceed.
JUDGE MALL: Yes Mr Hole.
MR HOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
May I ask, before I begin the case for the first applicant
Mr Chairman to request to make a few amendments to the
application.
JUDGE MALL: Certainly.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 2 ADDRESS
MR HOLE: In respect of the first applicant, Mr K E Thoba, I wish to ask for an amendment to include a further victim, namely Ms N Maqoma. The Committee will recall that he made application only in respect of three victims.
JUDGE MALL: Would you spell the name of that victim please?
MR HOLE: It is spelt M-A-Q-O-M-A Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Was she the victim in respect of the trial that was heard at Alice? The second victim there?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR HOLE: In respect of the second applicant, Mr Thompson I wish to amend his application by adding a further victim, namely Ms N Maqoma. She is the same person that has been referred to in the previous amendment.
And in respect of the third applicant, Mr J W Makom, I wish to make application to amend and include application for immunity in respect of the assault and torture of Miss N Msuthwana.
Mr Chairman the reason for this late amendment is that in respect of Mr Thoba he was acquitted in respect of the assault on Miss Maqoma, and on further discussions we had agreed that we should ask the Committee for amnesty in respect of that assault as well, although he was acquitted in respect thereof.
In respect of Mr Thompson the same applies, Mr Chairman.
In respect of Mr Makom he was not even charged with the assault on Ms Msuthwana, but he does wish to lay himself open to this Commission and ask for amnesty in respect of that one as well. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Are the applicants going to give evidence in Xhosa?
MR HOLE: Mr Chairman I have discussed this with them and Mr
Brink next to me and to facilitate matters I propose to read. I have I made their statements in the form of affidavits which are available for the Commissioners as well. I propose to read EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 3 MR THOBA
them for them and they are available to answer in Xhosa, whatever questions the Commission might want to put to them.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Are you proposing to start with Mr Thoba, Mr Hole?
KWANALE ENOCH THOBA: (sworn states)
W THOMPSON: (sworn states)
J W MAKOM: (sworn states)
JUDGE MALL: Yes you may proceed.
MR HOLE: I have before me statements prepared by these applicants. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand them up to the Commission.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may hand them in. For convenience, we will identify these documents as follows:
The sworn statement by Mr Thoba to be Exhibit A;
by Mr Thompson to be Exhibit B;
and the one by Mr Makom as Exhibit C.
MR HOLE: May I proceed?
JUDGE MALL: Yes please.
MR HOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
This is the statement prepared in support of an application by the first applicant, Mr Kwanale Enoch Thoba. It is in the form of an affidavit.
Mr Chairman it reads as follows:
"The facts deposed to hereunder are within my personal knowledge unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise
indicates."
Then he recounts his personal circumstances. He says:
"I am 45 years old and married. I have three children, the eldest whom is doing standard seven. My last born is still too young to go to school.
I have been a member of the Police Force since the 6th of
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 4 MR THOBA
June 1979. I attended training at the Police College Hammanskraal for six months and was on graduation attached to the Uniform Branch of the Ciskei Police.
After a number of years in the Uniform Branch I was transferred to the CID where I also worked for a number of years until I was transferred to the Elite Unit of the Ciskei Police. This is where I served until the military coup of March, 1990.
The offences of which I was convicted and in respect of which I now seek amnesty were committed whilst attached to this unit.
During 1992 I was arrested and sentenced in separate cases for crimes involving assaults on political detainees.
I am now serving a period of ten years imprisonment for these offences.
Although the offences I have made myself guilty of did not include murder of persons, as has happened in security related cases throughout the country, they are nonetheless very serious ones and for which I wish to express remorse and if possible ask forgiveness.
I have been involved in assaults and torture of political prisoners in circumstances where wisdom and good sense should have told me to act otherwise.
In order to understand why deeds like these were possible to perform perhaps one should look at the history of this region to be able to place things and understand them in proper perspective."
Then he deals with the independence of the national states and the relations between the Ciskei and the Transkei.
"As part of the wider scheme of apartheid Transkei became independent in 1976. Ciskei was to follow in December 1981
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 5 MR THOBA
under the leadership of President Sebe. From the onset Transkei was unhappy about Ciskei being given "independence". Transkei felt that Ciskei should be given to Transkei to realise their dream of a great Xhosa nation. These attitudes strained the relations between the states and these strained relations had far reaching consequences and have a bearing on the case before this Committee."
It goes on to deal with the Ciskei state Mr Chairman. He says,
"The Ciskei state was a creation of apartheid. To qualify as a country it had to have a population over which it held sovereignty. To achieve this masses of people were displaced and forcibly removed from the so-called black spots and removed to Ciskei.
Those who could not be moved to Ciskei by promises of a land of milk and honey were moved by the Military and placed in Ciskei.
A Secretary for Black Administration and Development wrote in Circular No 25 of 1967:
'It is accepted Government policy that the Bantu are only temporarily resident in the area of the Republic for as long as they offer their labour there. As soon
as they become no longer fit in the labour market they are expected to return to their country of origin or the territory of the national unit where they fit. No stone should be left unturned to achieve this settlement in the homelands of non-productive Bantu.'
This is a quotation from a book by Brian Lapink, entitled "Apartheid, A History."
A priest, Cosmos Desmond, reported of a group that was forcibly removed and settled in Natal. He is quoted:
"We found the first arrivals sitting in the bare veld,
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 6 MR THOBA
surrounded by their belongings, looking bewildered and utterly lost. A little distance away was a water tank and a pile of folded tents, which the people did no know how to erect. Nothing else."
This is also a quotation from the same work.
"The scene painted by Father Desmond is true of many cases in Ciskei, especially in Dimbaza. This was the kind of people His Excellency President for Life, Lennox Sebe, was presiding over. Poor displaced and angry people.
The Police were caught in this trap especially those falling into the Security Police category. It was only a question of time before more and more brutality was to be unleashed to subdue the brave ones who spoke out against the injustice."
Then dealing with the Sebe family Mr Commissioner, Mr Chairman:
"If the Ciskei Government was discredited for being an apartheid structure to enforce human suffering it was
no less discredited for being an institution of upliftment and enrichment of the Sebe family and those close to them.
Lennox Sebe was the Head of State. His other brother was Minister of Transport. The other brother was a Commander General of the combined forces, commanding and holding power over the following: the Army, the Police, the Prisons, the Special Forces, the Traffic Police. He was the most powerful person in Ciskei. He was consulted about and authorised all detentions, under Proclamation R252, and later under the National Security Act of 1982."
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 7 MR THOBA
The Committee is at this stage referred to a judgment by His Lordship Mr Justice Pickard in a case of the STATE v SEBE, the reference is quoted in the statement. The judgment, Mr Chairman, is quoted at length and begins at page 16 of their representations.
"The sons of Namba and Charles Sebe held ranks in the armed forces as well. It was indeed a Sebe state. During a state function held at the national shrine an unscheduled speaker rose from the ranks of the audience and advanced to the podium and made a speech based on the Scriptures. He prophesied that in the future Charles Sebe would be powerful, even more powerful than the President.
The immediate result of this is that the President became fearful of his own brother and proceeded to strip him of his powers.
He sidelined him in matters of state and the
President's security.
In turn Charles Sebe became afraid of the wrath of the President. He feared being detained as he had fallen out of favour."
Again the Commission is referred to a judgment by Judge Pickard at specifically page 626. This is Annexure A of the representations, Mr Chairman.
"Fear rose in the senior ranks of the police about their possible detentions.
The events following the demotion of Mr Charles Sebe were as follows:
A. Brig Tamsanqa who had served as Charles Sebe's Deputy, was detained.
B. Senior Officers, including Charles Sebe gathered
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 8 MR THOBA
around and discussed and questioned the legality of the detention. Suggestions of releasing Tamsanqa by force were made.
C. Charles Sebe was detained and charged with terrorism. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment by the Bisho Supreme Court.
Again the Committee is referred to Annexure A which is the judgment of Justice Pickard and Annexure B which is an article quoted from the Daily Despatch, entitled 'Charles Sebe Trial Date set at Bisho. Annexure C, Gen Minnaar was also detained.'
I am instructed, Mr Chairman, that Gen Minnaar was the side-kick of Gen Sebe. Also the Committee is referred to Annexure D which is an article by the Daily Despatch with the heading 'Sebe Jailed for Twelve Years'.
"Soon after the arrest of Charles Sebe his brother, Namba, was also arrested on corruption charges. His son Kamba, was arrested and detained by the Police. Mr Namba Sebe sued the Commissioner of Police for arrest and detention.
The Government requested further particulars to the particulars of claim. When he could not supply these the claim was dismissed with costs."
The Committee is referred to Annexure E which is the combined summons by Mr Namba Sebe, suing for his son and Annexure F which is the Order of the Supreme Court of Ciskei which dismissed his action with costs.
"Charles Sebe was to meet with a similar fate. He sued for arrear salaries. The Government defended the action and asked for further particulars, asking inter alia when and by whom he had been employed as a Major General in the Police Force.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 9 MR THOBA
When he could not supply these particulars, his case was also dismissed with costs."
Reference is made to Annexure G which is the combined summons, and Annexure H which is the Order of Court, dismissing his action with costs.
"To the legal practitioner this might appear to be a run of the mill procedure in civil litigation. To us in the Security Forces this was a clear message that the President meant business. If he could do these things to his flesh and blood ....."
Mr Commissioner I think there is a mistake here, but I will proceed.
"A further factor was that the wives of his imprisoned and exiled brothers were evicted from their homes. This was believed to be at the instance of the President or he allowed it to happen."
Mr Chairman, the Committee is again referred to Annexure I, which is an article by the Daily Despatch at the time, reporting on the eviction of Mrs Namba Sebe and Mrs Charles Sebe from their homes, which was in Tjajo in Ciskei.
"Namba Sebe jumped bail and sought refuge in Transkei. Namba and Charles Sebe were tried and convicted of terrorism and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for terrorism. "
This is Namba and Charles Sebe's sons Mr Commissioner.
"On the 26th of September 1985 a group of White men raided the maximum security prison in Middeldrift and freed Charles Sebe. This was the worst nightmare of his former juniors, who had whilst he had lost power, acted against him. Charles Sebe was reputedly powerful and influential. It was not known what he
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 10 MR THOBA
would do when he was set free.
Those who betrayed him had a lot to fear in the line of retribution. Pressure was put on the juniors to find him."
Mr Chairman, the Committee is referred to Annexure J which is also an article by a local newspaper, reporting on the armed and violent skipping of Mr Charles Sebe from jail.
"On the same day of the escape of Charles Sebe from prison the son of the President and the Commander of the Elite Unit of which we were members Major General
Kwane Sebe and his Deputy Colonel Zandasile Waya were abducted. They were drugged and transported to Transkei in the boot of a motor vehicle.
The pair had been abducted from the Amatola Hotel in Bisho where Charles Sebe was seen shortly after his escape. It was feared that they were in his hands.
What became clear to the Security Forces was that we were dealing with not only with Charles Sebe but also his allies who were sophisticated and capable of out manoeuvering us.
There was a state of panic, and pressure was being put on the Security Forces and the Elite Unit in particular to find the President's son alive.
Soon after the abduction of the two it was learnt through Intelligence reports that they were kept hostage by the President's brother, Mr Namba Sebe."
The Committee, Mr Chairman, is referred to Annexure K, which is an article by a local newspaper, reporting on the abduction and the claim made by Mr Namba Sebe that he was keeping these two hostage.
"Soon demands were received for the release of Tony
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 11 MR THOBA
Sebe and Kamba Sebe. These were sons of Namba and Charles Sebe respectively who were serving sentences for terrorism in Ciskei. They had been convicted of participation in an attack on a Cabinet member's home, Mr B M Pitje.
These were most dangerous times in Ciskei. Days of intrigue and subterfuge.
They were made even worse by the apparent free hand
the Ciskei state gave to the insurgents ...(indistinct).
Soon after the escape of Charles Sebe reports were received that he had joined an organisation, called Illisolomzi, formed by Ben Nomoy and Lent Maqoma, the latter a former member of the parliament in Ciskei.
Reports of a guerilla unit under training were received. The Ciskei Government Intelligence fraternity sent W O Sidney Magauwli to infiltrate Illisolomzi. He sent home reports of the training, personnel and plans of Illisolomzi. What was most disturbing about the reports was that the armed units were trained by and with the assistance of the Transkei Defence Force.
Pamphlets were distributed in Ciskei by Illisolomzi. One of the pamphlets confirmed that Charles Sebe had become a member of this movement."
The Committee is now referred to Annexure L, which is an article by a local newspaper, reporting on the conviction of the sons of Mr Namba and Charles Sebe for terrorism.
"The period after the escape of Charles Sebe was met by panic, fear and mass detentions of those perceived to belong to his organisation or were sympathetic to
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 12 MR THOBA
its cause.
It was in that context that Brig Simandla, Miss Msutwana and Mrs Nomoy were detained and tortured.
This is by no means to justify acts of torture and suffering but to try, difficult as it might be, to
explain the context in which such acts took place.
Miss Msutwana was believed to be connected to Charles Sebe through her sister.
Mrs Nomoy's husband was believed to be a member of Illisolomzi.
She at that stage had been in hiding in Transkei. Brig Simandla was head of Middeldrift Prison when Charles Sebe was freed.
There were reports that a cell key had been lost prior to their escape. There were reports that he had disarmed some of the guards prior to the escape. Whether these reports are true or not we cannot say. They were, however, the basis of his questioning."
Then, the applicant, Mr Chairman, goes on to deal with the torture of Brig Simandla.
"Soon after the escape of Mr Charles Sebe from Middeldrift Prison, information was received via intelligence sources that Brig Simandla who was head of Middeldrift Prison at the time, had:
A. Caused or allowed the guards of the perimeter fence to be disarmed on the day of the attack.
B. Allowed or made it possible for a guard not to be posted at the tower post on the night of the attack.
C. Made it possible for a cell key to be lost some weeks before the escape. This key was used in
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 13 MR THOBA
the escape.
This information had not been verified and Col Panzi who was acting as the head of the Elite Unit during
the abduction of the Officer Commanding and his Deputy, instructed people to question Brig Simandla.
The people instructed to do so were myself,( that is Mr Thoba, Mr Chairman), W/O Bojana, Lt Thompson. We proceeded to Tanaga Police Station where Brig Simandla was held and proceeded to question him. During this questioning no assaults were committed nor was the Brigadier manhandled in any manner.
Having completed the interrogation we proceeded to Col Panzi to brief him. The summary of our report was that the prisoner was denying all participation in the escape of Charles Sebe.
Brig Simandla admitted that no guard was placed at the tower post but said this was because the toilet at the base of the tower was out of order.
Lt Thompson, who had been the head of the interrogation, told us that he had been commanded to conduct another interrogation of Brig Simandla.
The following day we proceeded from our Bisho offices to Thamaka Police Station to conduct the interrogation. I noticed during interrogation that aside from Lt Thompson, Makom, myself and W/O Bojala, there were also other members of the Security Police from Mdantsane. They also took part in the interrogation. Again Brig Simandla gave us the same replies that he had given the previous day.
At this stage the Brigadier was in the interrogation room being interrogated by; (i) myself; (ii) W/O
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 14 MR THOBA
Bojala; (iii) W/O Nqandana of the Mdantsane Security;
(iv) W/O Swelendao of Mdantsane Security; (v) W/O Shulane of the Mdantsane Security; (vi) Lt Funane of the Mdantsane Security; (vii) Lt Makom; (viii) Lt Thompson.
We had known even before commencing this interrogation that we were to put pressure on the Brigadier to answer our questions. This had been talked about amongst us as being the orders from Col Panzi, to get the truth by assaults from the Brigadier, if needs be.
When it became apparent that we were not getting any admissions the Brigadier was ordered to undress. Having undressed he was forced onto his stomach and suffocated with an inner tube of a motor vehicle. Pressure was applied to the tube which caused him to suffocate.
Whilst this was happening other persons assisted in pressing him down and others held his feet and arms. Other people even sat on his back. This torture carried on for a while and people used to relieve each other and others would go out for fresh air or wash their faces.
The object of this was to make the Brigadier confess to having had a hand in the escape and possibly gave us leads to the plotters of the escape who might still be in Ciskei.
During the torture Lt Funane and Thompson seemed to be in command of the operation. A cigarette was also used to burn Brig Simandla on his body, in an effort
to induce him to speak. W/O Swelendao was the one who applied the cigarette on him.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 15 MR THOBA
At some stage during the interrogation Brig Simandla lost consciousness and we took him out of the cell to try and revive him. We feared that he might have been suffocated for too long and would die.
Cold water was poured over his body to try and revive him. After a while he came to his senses. We were now all afraid to continue and he was asked to put his clothes on.
A report of what had taken place was given to Col Panzi who said we should be careful that the detainee does not die during interrogation.
Up to the end of the torture Brig Simandla denied complicity in the springing of Charles Sebe from prison."
Then Mr Chairman he proceeds to deal with the torture of Miss Nomtunzi Msutwana.
"Miss Msutwana was employed by the Department of Post and Telecommunication and based at Bisho. Miss Msutwana was also one of the persons detained following the escape of Mr Charles Sebe from prison. Her detention was in terms of the National Security Act of Ciskei.
Having been taken from her home she was taken for a brief moment to our offices in Bisho where she was informed of her detention.
After this she was taken to the Zwelitsha Police
District Headquarters for interrogation. I was one of the people selected to interrogate her.
On arrival at the District Headquarters she was questioned about her links with Mr Charles Sebe and Illisolomzi. She denied all association with these
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 16 MR THOBA
people. During the course of her interrogation Miss Msutwana became tired and refused to answer questions, possibly because some of them were repetitive.
When it became clear that no information would voluntarily came from her we gave her treatment, similar to what which had been given to Brig Simandla:
(1), she was forced to take her clothes off;
(2), a motor car inner tube was pulled around her face to cause her to suffocate;
(3), she was forced to lie on her back;
(4), a substance known as Sipapatxapa(?) was poured on her thighs and onto her vagina. This caused an itching and irritating tract. Burns resulted from this;
(5), when these things were done to her, some of us would press her down to overcome any resistance. Others held her legs and others held and pressed her arms down.
The people with whom I did this were: (i) Sgt Makwetu; Iii) Sgt Mzimkulu; (iii) Lt Thompson.
These things we did caused much pain and discomfort to Miss Msutwana. She, however, was resolute in denying any participation in the deeds we questioned her about. She provided no information resulting in the
escape of Mr Charles Sebe, nor Illisolomzi.
After we had despaired and stopped the interrogation and torture, Col Panzi entered the interrogation room and asked if she had said anything. We replied that she was still denying it. He asked if we had done all that we had to do. When we replied in the affirmative he kicked her and left the room."
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 17 MR THOBA
Then he deals, Honourable Members of the Committee, with the torture of Miss Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy.
"Miss Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy, who are sisters, were amongst the people detained as a follow-up to the escape of Mr Charles Sebe. Intelligence reports were to the effect that Mrs Nomoy's husband was a member of Illisolomzi, referred to earlier in my representations.
Miss Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy's father, Mr Lent Maqoma
was also known to be a Illisolomzi members. The detention of these ladies was for them to be questioned on their activities and to get information from them about the agents of Illisolomzi in the Ciskei.
Information had been received that these ladies had returned to Ciskei after a period of hiding in the Transkei. The following officers were detained to take part in the arrest of these ladies: Myself,(that is W/O Thoba Mr Chairman), Lt Thompson, W/O Bojana; and WO Makom.
I had been the one who received a telephonic instruction from Capt Katangana to pick up men and go
and arrest the two women. The instructions were phoned through to me at home in the evening. I proceeded to the homes of these Officers and told them of my instructions.
We drove to the home of these people at Douglasdale Farm, Alice, in two motor vehicles that same night.
On our arrival at Alice we started at the Police Station where we were to receive further instructions from Capt Katangana. Indeed Capt Katangana was
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 18 MR THOBA
waiting for us together with his twin brother. W/O Makom, whom we could not get at his home had also travelled with them to Alice.
From Alice we drove to the home of the Maqoma's. When we arrived at the home the lights were shining inside and outside the house. As soon as our vehicle stopped the lights were switched off. This gave us the idea that the people were alerted to our presence and might try to escape.
We decided to surround the house and knock. Our knocks produced no results. I decided to kick the door in. We penetrated the house. A search was conducted and at different stages Mrs Nomoy and Miss Maqoma were found in the house, hiding. One person was found under the bed and the other in the wardrobe.
The two women were slapped with open hands by us in the house and were sworn at and shouted at. They were still in their sleeping clothes. They were allowed to wear proper clothing and led out of the house.
As they were being led outside, they were being
prodded with muzzles of guns on their backs to hasten them up.
Outside the house they were loaded into boots of cars and driven to Alice Police Station.
In Alice Police Station they were kicked, slapped and insulted by us. They were undressed and kept completely naked whilst being questioned. A wet towel was used to throttle and suffocate them during interrogation, during questioning.
I insulted Mrs Nomoy by saying that she is busy going up and down Transkei and Ciskei whilst her husband was
EAST LANDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 19 MR THOBA
busy with his girlfriends. When I said this she wept bitterly.
After the interrogation we were satisfied that they indeed had information as their admissions about the activities of their father and Mrs Nomoy's husband corresponded with information we had.
Capt Katanga telephoned Col Panzi and informed him of our success. Col Panzi instructed that they be taken away to be detained at Dimbaza police cells.
The trauma suffered by Miss Msutwana and Brig
Simandla, Miss Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy is beyond comparison.
Whether or not they were involved in these activities could never have entitled them to such extreme acts of torture.
I have a wife and children whom I love so much. Often whilst in the service of the Elite Unit I asked myself what helplessness and pain would overcome one
if one were to be placed in the same circumstances I placed some of the people who came to our offices for interrogation.
The years I have sat in jail have given me ample opportunity to think long and hard about how my life has unfolded and the events that overcame it.
If there is anything that I could wish for more than amnesty it is to be loved, accepted and, hard as it might be, to be forgiven by those I have hurt so much.
The things I did to these victims were things I could not even mention in conversation to my wife and children when they asked how my day had been.
In spite of all the brutality and the pain I meted
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 20 MR THOBA
out I bore no personal grudge to any of these people. They were people I would probably have met in like and circumstances different from what we found ourselves in.
And I ask that it may please this Committee to extend amnesty to me."
Mr Chairman this affidavit was sworn to and signed by the applicant at the Mdantsane Prison on the 15th March 1997.
This concludes the written statement that he made in preparation for this, but with the leave of the Committee
I wish to put certain questions to expand on some items to the applicant.
Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR HOLE: Mr Thoba, in amplifying your application I wish to ask you certain questions and I want to ask you to give your answers to the Committee.
In the judgment given by the Regional Court Magistrate, Mr Maqubela, at page 5 of that judgment, relating to the assault on Miss Maqoma, she is recorded as having been electrocuted with electric wires among others, and was also trampled upon. Do you confirm that this is what was done and you took part in this?
MR THOBA: Yes it is so. I did have a hand in that, a lot.
MR HOLE: Thank you. And in the same judgment Sir, relating again to the assault on these people, you in particular, are recorded as having brought a string with which this lady was tied up, this is at page 7 of the judgment, Mr Chairman, and that a tube was place around the face of this lady. Is this in fact correct?
MR THOBA: Yes it is the truth.
JUDGE WILSON: What page of the bundle is it? Oh it's not part of the bundle.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 21 MR THOBA
MR HOLE: It is what the Committee through Mr Brink, prepared.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hole would that be under Annexure D of Mr Brink's prepared application?
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE IS NOT ON
MR HOLE: May I continue, Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Please do.
MR HOLE: Thank you. It is also recorded Sir, in the judgment of the court that a damp towel was used in suffocating these ladies and throttling them. Is this in fact what took place?
MR THOBA: Yes Sir, it is the truth.
MR HOLE: One of these ladies was at some stage ordered to lick the boots of one of the applicants, Mr Makom, and remove therefrom the blood that had flowed onto his boots. Is this also what took place in your presence?
MR THOBA: Yes it is the truth.
MR HOLE: The judgment, it is now bundle D, Mr Chairman, at page 9, it is recorded that there were burn marks on both breasts and burn marks on the thighs of Mrs Nomoy. I want to ask you was a cigarette used in torturing her?
MR THOBA: Telephone wires were used to torture her.
MR HOLE: Thank you. And at Bundle E, Mr Chairman, at page 323, Mr Thoba you are recorded as having taken part in removing the pantihose of one of the complainants and forcing her to lie down as well as pulling her hair. Is this what in fact you did?
MR THOBA: Yes it is the truth.
MR HOLE: And you are also recorded as having mocked her and remarked, perhaps not so appropriately, about her private parts. Is this also the truth?
MR THOBA: Yes it is the truth.
MR HOLE: Still at page 324, Mr Chairman, at Bundle E, Mr Thoba, you are also reported to have used a plastic bag to cover the EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 22 MR THOBA
face of the victim, thus causing her to suffocate. Is this correct?
MR THOBA: Yes it is the truth.
MR HOLE: And Mrs Nomoy, at page 325 of Bundle E was also poured over with water and a fan was switched on and placed next to her as she lay down on the ground. Is this what took place?
MR THOBA: Yes this is the truth.
MR HOLE: And that at page 326 of Bundle E, Mr Chairman, Mr Thoba you are also reported as having used a baton with which you hit her. Is this correct?
MR THOBA: Yes it is so.
MR HOLE: Lastly Mr Thoba, how do you feel about these things?
MR THOBA: Today, I am very disappointed with myself. This is very painful. The deeds of torturing victims and this issue. It is not what I did willingly, it was painful for me to do, but because of the circumstances at the time as the Ciskeian Police, if you did not do your job appropriately, so-to-speak, you would be detained.
MR HOLE: Are you aware of any member of the Security Police or the Elite Unit in particular who was detained and ended up being tortured?
MR THOBA: Yes, Mr Mlungisi Ganda was one of the people who
were tortured by four captains. They did not just torture him, he was charged with terrorism. Those were the circumstances that we lived under. Therefore a person like me was very sad because I was very low in the ranks, that was my fear, I had to do things that I did not like.
MR HOLE: Yes. And what rank did Mr Ganda hold in the Ciskei Police at the time of his arrest if you can recall?
MR THOBA: He was a Colonel.
MR HOLE: And do you know what happened to the officers who
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 23 MR THOBA
assaulted him?
MR THOBA: These captains who were torturing him got promoted in fact. They were also taken to the court of law and were sentenced. There was a presiding officer there, after he had sentenced them he lost his job but the captains were promoted. They became majors.
SPEAKER'S MIKE NOT ON: What was the name of this gentleman? ...(indistinct)
MR THOBA: It was Mr Ngoxo.
...(indistinct)
MR THOBA: Yes Sir.
MR HOLE: Do you know who paid the fines for these officers who assaulted Col Ganda?
MR THOBA: The State paid.
MR HOLE: Have you today spoken at all to any of the victims of these assaults?
MR THOBA: Yes, I have spoken to Brig Simandla. I was just asking after his health. I was also trying to reflect repentance with the way I ill-treated him. Mrs Msutwana, I wanted to greet her but I was too scared, because I feel ever so guilty for what I did.
I request Brigadier, Mrs Msutwana, Mrs Nomoy, won't you please forgive me? I ask for forgiveness for the deeds.
You must recall that the cause of all this was the Government of the day.
MR HOLE: I see that you are also Sir, applying for amnesty in respect of Miss Maqoma and I understand that in the trial that you faced you were acquitted in respect of the assault on her. Can you tell the Committee why are you now asking for amnesty in respect of her as well when you were in fact acquitted of the deeds?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 24 MR THOBA
MR THOBA: I am asking Lindela Maqoma for forgiveness because she is one of the victims even though I was acquitted in court, I am merely feeling guilty and I am asking the Committee here to forgive me as well.
MR HOLE: Mr Chairman, that terminates the questions I wish to ask from the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOLE.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink are there any questions you wish to put
to the applicant?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK.
MR BRINK: Yes please, Mr Chairman Mr Thoba in your original application for amnesty and here I am referring, Mr Chairman, to paragraph 11(B) you indicated that the complainants with whom you were involved were detained following the orders of Col Panzi. That is correct?
MR THOBA: Yes Sir, that is so.
MR BRINK: Did the orders come directly to you from Col Panzi or did they come from one of your superiors who was below Col Panzi?
MR THOBA: These orders were from Col Panzi directly.
MR BRINK: He gave no instructions to torture people, did he?
MR THOBA: He did.
MR BRINK: Will you tell me what those instructions were?
MR THOBA: He said that I must visit the detainees. And I must endeavour to get the truth from them. If I did not get the truth I must beat them up. The aim was to get the truth.
MR BRINK: I do not want for the purpose the decency in this Committee to repeat what has already been said by you, but I suggest to you that no one would have given you an order to treat these women in the most appalling and disgusting and inhuman manner that you did. Revolting!
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 25 MR THOBA
MR THOBA: Yes, Sir I did, but I was given orders. This is the way the Ciskeian Police conducted themselves.
MR BRINK: All of them? Are you saying that the Ciskeian Police all behaved or would have behaved in the manner you behaved?
MR THOBA: Yes, the Police that were attached from the original place where I was attached to, that is how they behaved. If you are to interrogate someone, that was the order of the day.
MR BRINK: I can understand that in the circumstances which happened in South Africa in the old days that detainees were knocked about and beaten up, I can understand that. What I cannot understand is the way you behaved, particularly in regard to these women. In the most revolting ...(tape ends)
MR THOBA: The way I tortured and ill-treated these women this is the way the police conducted themselves. I found the situation as thus. I just continued on the job as the others did.
MR BRINK: Yes and I am not surprised you say you could not mention it to your wife and children in paragraph 64 of
your statement. Now it is correct, isn't that none of these victims made any confessions to you of subversive activities in the then Ciskei?
MR THOBA: They never revealed anything. Miss Msutwana and Brig Simandla did not admit to what I was asking them.
MR BRINK: Let's deal briefly with Miss Msutwana. She was arrested or detained rather, on the 23rd of October 1986. Do you remember that?
MR THOBA: Yes I do remember.
MR BRINK: On the same day she was appallingly treated by you and your colleagues.
MR THOBA: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: Notwithstanding that grossly inhuman behaviour on EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 26 MR THOBA
your part she admitted nothing.
MR THOBA: It is so.
MR BRINK: And she was then left without any medical attention for a period of five days until the 28th of October 1986, when she was seen by a doctor. It is in the record.
MR THOBA: The medical attention that she was meant to have was dependent on the Captain of that particular police station.
MR BRINK: This woman was left alone for five days after the most savage, brutal and revolting assaults upon her and she had not made any confession whatsoever, please explain that?
JUDGE WILSON: Did you have anything to do with her for those five days Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: Did you visit her during those five days?
That was after the time the assaults ceased and until she received medical attention.
MR THOBA: No, I did not have anything to do with her in those five days.
MR BRINK: Did you not think to see how she was getting on?
MR THOBA: I was too scared to go, because I was going to be accused of working with her, collaborating with her. The captain of the station was meant to look after her or after her needs.
MR BRINK: Did you tell the captain, we have treated this woman very badly, we have tortured her, we have got nothing from her, would you not go and see her and see whether or not she should see a doctor?
MR THOBA: Yes, I did tell him.
MR BRINK: Now you say, or your evidence was to the effect that what you did to these women in particular, the treatment you gave Brig Simandla was bad enough, but the treatment you gave to these women in particular, you say, you did not do it willingly?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 27 MR THOBA
MR THOBA: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: It seems to me from reading the record that you had the most, from your point of view, enjoyably sadistic time.
MR THOBA: No Sir, it is not so. As a man who was married it was painful to me, but it was because of the circumstances that we worked under.
MR BRINK: You were laughing at these women. You were laughing at them. You only laugh if you are happy.
MR THOBA: I did not laugh because I was happy at all. You had to appear as if you were enjoying the job, so that it does not appear like you are working together with the victims. It was painful. It is painful to this day.
MR BRINK: Yes I can understand it is painful in retrospect. You were a married man at the time. Were you not?
MR THOBA: Yes I was married at the time.
MR BRINK: And your colleagues were married men at the time. Were they not?
MR THOBA: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: And as married men did you not think women
deserve some respect even if they were political enemies?
MR THOBA: Yes they had to be treated with respect. If we had not been given the instructions that we must torture them, I do admit that they were ill-treated, but this is because of the instructions that we received. We had to torture them. Even though to us it was painful to do so.
MR BRINK: So painful that you laughed at them.
MR THOBA: I was not laughing. I had to pretend that I was enjoying my job. If I had to sulk it would have repercussions. Police would be detained just because you had a negative attitude. This was under 2R52. These are the painful
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 28 MR THOBA
circumstances we worked under.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Thoba, you were given instructions to torture your subjects with a view of extracting information relating to the activities of Illisolomzi, is it not so? And you were not given instructions to torture in order to gain more information about the nature of your victim's private parts.
MR THOBA: It was one of the ways in which during torturing someone you would be just endeavouring to abstract the truth, so that when you give a report back to the person who gave instructions you would go with a positive report.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink you have no further questions?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
KWANALE ENOCH THOBA: (s.u.o.)
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman may I just address you briefly. During the adjournment and following upon discussions with my colleague appearing for the applicants it has been agreed after consultation with the two victims present that there is no need for Mr Hole to read out the remaining applicants' affidavits. The copies which the Committee has will be made available to both victims and in those circumstances then Mr Hole is at liberty to put certain questions to his clients on the basis of these statements made and whether or not I cross-examination would depend on what comes out. It is very unlikely I will be doing any further cross-examination.
I may say that Brig Simandla and Miss Msutwana, certainly Brigadier, has indicated that he does not oppose, I don't know whether it's the right stage to mention this, but before I forget he does not oppose the applications for amnesty, he says in the interests of reconciliation in this country. Miss Msutwana is EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 29 MR THOBA
more equivocal about that. She does not, however, wish to give evidence but both of them have asked me to have this matter referred to the Human Rights Violations Committee and the
Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it the affidavits will become public documents. Other people also want access to them.
MR BRINK: Oh yes, oh yes.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole these documents will now by consent, the statements of the affidavits will now no longer be - will be read into the record.
You may then proceed to put such questions as you would like to, to the applicants.
MR HOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Who are we dealing with now?
MR HOLE: I propose to deal with applicant No 2, Mr Thompson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Before you proceed to deal with the evidence of Mr Thompson, may I just ask Mr Thoba one question. I want to know where did you obtain the substance which you poured on the private parts of Miss Msutwana, this Isiqwapaqwapa? Where was this obtained from?
MR THOBA: This Isiqwapaqwapa, the substance I found it from members of the Security Police, W/O Makwetu in the Zwelitsha Police Station and Sergeant Mzimkulu.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was it normally used in the interrogation of victims?
MR THOBA: It was the first time I saw that tool and they told me that they always use it but I only knew about the tube. When I asked them what kind of a substance was this, they told me that it is a medicine that is normally used by Zionists.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 30 MR THOMPSON
MR THOMPSON: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR HOLE: Dealing with Mr Thompson, Mr Chairman.
Mr Thompson Sir, you have deposed to an affidavit which was signed by yourself at the Mdantsane Prison, is that correct?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: And in that affidavit you seek to relate the events surrounding the torture of Mrs Nomoy, Miss Maqoma, Miss Msutwana and Brig Simandla?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: In your statement you relate the surrounding events as being the escape of Mr Charles Sebe from prison and the abduction of Mr Kwane Sebe, the son of the President.
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: Would this have been the reason why these people were arrested and tortured?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so.
MR HOLE: Would you tell the Commission today, the Committee, how do you feel about what you took part in the gross treatment that was meted out by your colleagues and yourself to these victims before the Committee today?
MR THOMPSON: I hurt a lot because what I did to them, me and my colleagues was very painful. And thus I ask for forgiveness. I would not have laughed or accepted it if it was done to me but because of the working circumstances then we had to handle them in the manner that we did.
MR HOLE: You have heard Mr Thoba answer questions and you have also heard his statement being read. Do you confirm the contents of that as being the truth, a true account of what took place there?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: And the Elite Unit that you were a member of was it EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 31 MR THOMPSON
formed in terms of any statute?
MR THOMPSON: Can you repeat your question Sir?
MR HOLE: Was there any law of the Ciskei Parliament establishing the Elite Unit?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: So you refer in your statement to the Elite Unit Act No 18 of 1986 which is annexed in your statement as Annexure A. Is this the Act we are talking about?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: Was there also a Security Branch of the Police in
Ciskei?
MR THOMPSON: Yes there was Sir.
MR HOLE: But this Elite Unit was established over and above the existing units?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: You mention among the people who tortured these people, yourself, Mr Thoba, Mr Makom and you also mention a Sgt Makwetu, Sgt Belo, Sgt Mzimkulu, and a Lt Blaauw, yet those are the people you mentioned, are these serving members of the South African Police today?
MR THOMPSON: The last time I heard from them, they were working in Ciskei but since I was arrested I don't know where they are now.
MR HOLE: These people were not arrested in connection with this offence.
MR THOMPSON: No, they were never arrested Sir.
MR HOLE: You also mentioned W/O Nandana, Swelendao and Thlulane and Lt Funane.
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: Do you know if any of them have left the service of the Police services?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 32 MR THOMPSON
MR THOMPSON: The one I think that is still working is Mr Funane but I am not sure whether he is still employed as a policeman, but Mr Swelendao passed away. Funane and
Nandana are no longer members of the Police Force.
MR HOLE: Can you tell the Committee how do you relate the torture of these people, especially the women in particular with the attainment of a political objective by yourself or the Government of the day, of which you were an agent of.
MR THOMPSON: Firstly Miss Msutwana, she is a sister to
Nomalungela Msutwana, who is a girlfriend of Mr Charles Sebe. Mr Sebe escaped or he was released when he was sentenced for terrorism at maximum security prison in Middeldrift. There was information that landed in Elite offices that she is a link between her sister and Charles Sebe, after Charles Sebe had already escaped. That is when we interrogated and cross-questioned her about the assignment she was given by Charles Sebe on this side.
Miss Lindela Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy are sisters. They are Chief Lent Maqoma's daughters who was an ex-minister here in Ciskei and he launched an organisation called Ciskei People's Rights Protection Party. He is also said to be a member of Illisolomzi. Mrs Nomoy's husband which is Ben Nomoyi also became a member of that Ciskei Peoples' Rights Protection Party and Illisolomzi as well. They escaped and sought political asylum in Transkei where they stayed for some time. These two victims followed thereafter and stayed in Transkei. They came back, they infiltrated unnoticed but we heard through our informers that they were around and they were suspected that they were being assigned to come here and that's when we cross-questioned them about Illisolomzi's activities and as to why were they here.
MR HOLE: Also you mention in your statement that the assault EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 33 MR THOMPSON
was with a view to getting information from these people about agents of these organisations. Were these organisations lawful organisations in the Republic of Ciskei?
MR THOMPSON: No they were not lawful, because even the organisation itself, Illisolomzi and the Peoples' Rights were banned in Ciskei. Therefore, we had to know them and find them because they were radicals.
MR HOLE: Can you tell the Commission what was the aim of the Ciskei Peoples' Rights Protection Party?
MR THOMPSON: It was to overthrow Lennox Sebe's Government, so as to govern.
MR HOLE: That concludes the questions I wish to ask from the second applicant Mr Chairman, may I proceed with third applicant?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOLE
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Thompson, was the Peoples' Rights Protection Party working together with Illisolomzi?
MR THOMPSON: Yes Ma'am.
MS KHAMPEPE: And how was it a merger between the two organisations or did they have different constitutions,
only the same aims?
MR THOMPSON: They had the same aims. The Ciskeian Peoples' Rights Protection Party was an organisation, Illisolomzi was going to be the armed wing, because they were the ones who were trained in a military sense.
MS KHAMPEPE: When was the Peoples' Rights Protection Party formed Mr Thompson?
MR THOMPSON: I am not sure but I think it was June 1985 or even 1986.
MS KHAMPEPE: And Illisolomzi came into existence after the Peoples' Protection Party had been formed?
MR THOMPSON: Yes Ma'am.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MS KHAMPEPE 34 MR THOMPSON
JUDGE MALL: You say that this, these organisations and this party was banned, when was it banned?
MR THOMPSON: I cannot just recall the year, but they were banned immediately after formation, when they were known.
JUDGE MALL: And was this ban done by an Act of Parliament?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole would you know the answer as to whether this was done by Statute and if so, when?
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hole was it not the Suppression of the Banned Organisations Act? There was a reference somewhere by one of the applicants in the application to that effect.
MR HOLE: I am not able to supply the Committee with a specific Act, but if the Committee will have regard to Annexure Q of Mr Thoba's application, Mr Chairman this is a copy of the indictment in a Supreme Court matter between the State and one Matthews Lungi Sigenda, who was charged with, among others, with treason and terrorism. In the indictment it is spelled out clearly, in the preamble, that the Ciskei Peoples' Rights Protection Party was established on the 2nd of June 1986 and it goes on to say that this endeavour to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Transkei ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: On the next page, at the top of the page, it tells you when and how it was banned.
MR HOLE: That is so. I am indebted to the Committee.
JUDGE MALL: What was the name of the Political Party that was in power at the time?
MR THOMPSON: Here in Ciskei it was the Ciskei National Independence Party that was headed by President Sebe.
JUDGE MALL: Were there any other political parties besides this one?
MR THOMPSON: I cannot recall, UDF was existing but they did not EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE MALL 36 MR THOMPSON
have effect as in the whole South Africa.
JUDGE MALL: I was thinking of a political party such as the Ciskei National Independence Party. Was there an opposition party in Parliament?
MR THOMPSON: No Ciskei was a one state party at that time.
JUDGE MALL: Was that by law?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
JUDGE MALL: How did the Security Branch function apart from the Illisolomzi? What was the function of the Security Branch?
MR THOMPSON: Its duty was to watch ANC and UDF and other organisations.
JUDGE MALL: And Illisolomzi?
MR THOMPSON: The Elite Unit had to watch Illisolomzi because it was a direct threat to the Government.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole, any re-examination? I am sorry, Mr Brink are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Just one or two, briefly.
Mr Thompson one of the questions I put to Mr Thoba should perhaps more properly been directed to you. At the time that Miss
Msutwana was in detention you held rank senior to that of Mr Thoba, is that correct? You were Lieutenant?
MR THOMPSON: Yes, it is so Sir.
MR BRINK: And he was a Warrant Officer, I think.
MR THOMPSON: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: Now, you heard the questions and answers regarding the - after the assault the further detention of this victim without medical help, can you give any explanation for that? You were a commissioned Officer.
MR THOMPSON: Yes I heard that Sir. I agree with Mr Thoba because the duty of medical attention is the responsibility of the Station Commander. I had to tell Mr Panzi, but the Station EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 37 MR THOMPSON
Commander had the right of taking her to hospital, without consulting us if he thought that there was a problem.
MR BRINK: Well, did you recommend that she be taken to a hospital and seen by a doctor at least?
MR THOMPSON: No I never recommended that.
MR BRINK: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I do not propose asking any further questions. I just want to draw to your attention what appears to be an error, whether you have seen it. If you have a look at Annexure F of the bundle, which is the Appeal Court Judgement at page 4 at the top of that judgment, of this one relating to this particular application it's F of the whole bundle.
MS KHAMPEPE: That's annexure F of your own bundle Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: Yes, yes. And at page 4 of that judgment, the second paragraph, you will see that the learned Appeal Judge appears to have made an error. He refers to complainant being Voyisiwe Veronica Ntxanani. In fact Voyisiwe Veronica Ntxanani was a
magistrate and that appears on page 5 of the judgment about a third of the way down, the second paragraph. Just an error. In fact the complainant on the second count is, it's common cause was Nomtunzi Msutwana.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR BRINK: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole, any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HOLE: Mr Thompson, in your affidavit at paragraph 14, you tell the Committee that it was understood at the time that the African National Congress and its allies were not concerned with Ciskei, but rather with the South African state. Was that in fact the position?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: And at page three, of your affidavit, that's paragraph EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 38 MR THOMPSON
15A you say:
"Ciskei had a one party and all other parties were unlawful except for the Ciskei National Independence Party, whose head was President Sebe."
You go on and say:
"President Sebe at some stage even declared himself President for life."
Is that in fact the case?
MR THOMPSON: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: I have nothing further to ask the witness. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOLE
WITNESS EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 39 MR MAKOM
MR HOLE: With the Committee's leave I propose to deal with the third applicant.
JUDGE MALL: Are you proceeding now to Mr Makom?
MR HOLE: That is so, Mr Chairman. May I proceed Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
J W MAKOM: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR HOLE: Mr Makom you have a document before you, an affidavit which was signed by yourself on the 16th of March 1997 at Mdantsane Prison.
MR MAKOM: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: Was this document an account of what took place between you and the victims, before this Committee?
MR MAKOM: Yes, it is to Sir.
MR HOLE: Is it correct that the Elite Unit of which you were a member was disbanded by the military government which staged a coup led by Brig Qozo in 1990?
MR MAKOM: Yes it so Sir.
MR HOLE: Mr Chairman, he annexes to his representation Annexure A, which is the Elite Unit's (...indistinct) decree, that is at page 8 of his representation.
JUDGE MALL: Page eight of the affidavit?
MR HOLE: That is so. In your papers Mr Makom you sketched the relations between the Ciskei State and the Transkei State and the problems arising from those relations.
MR MAKOM: Can you please repeat your question Sir?
MR HOLE: You mentioned in your affidavit the problems that existed between Transkei and Ciskei.
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir.
MR HOLE: And you also make mention of an operation, which you call Operation Katzen.
JUDGE MALL: I'm afraid I can't hear you.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 40 MR MAKOM
MR HOLE: I am sorry. You made mention, is it audible now Mr Chairman? You make mention of an operation which you call Operation Katzen.
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir.
MR HOLE: Can you tell the Committee what this operation was all about?
MR MAKOM: According to my knowledge this Operation Katzen it was planned in Transkei by Illisolomzi Military wing of the Peoples' Rights Protection Party. This operation was to overthrow the late Mr Sebe who was the President of Ciskei at the time. This operation was to be carried out by this Party that I have already mentioned and its military wing assisted by the Transkei Defence Force and other members of the Military Intelligence of South Africa.
This happened and its aims were to overthrow the existing Ciskei Government then. This happened because there was an attack in Bisho during February 1987, I cannot recall the date exactly as it is quite some time now. The aims of this operation was to unite these two homelands, starting at Mzimkulu up to Gamtoos River.
Secondly, it was to suppress the political organisations that were in the border region. If I can recall clearly information that we got was that since it was known by the Military Intelligence of Transkei and Illisolomzi and the South African Military Unit the intention was to suppress all the political parties in the border region in order to prepare for the elections so that the National Party should win.
MR HOLE: In your application, Sir you make mention of the fact that the Ciskei Government was seen as being too lenient on the African National Congress and its allies.
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 41 MR MAKOM
MR HOLE: May the Committee bear with me. I am reading from page number 2. In your affidavit Sir, you also mention that there was a constant change of Commissioners of Police in the Ciskei hierarchy at the time. Can you expand more on this?
MR MAKOM: Police commissioners were being changed frequently in Ciskei at that time because there was an unrest and there was a feeling that the agents have already infiltrated the Ciskei. And this led to the interchange because nobody seems to be trusted.
MR HOLE: On page three of your aaffidavit, starting from paragraph no 13, you make mention of the fact that after Gen Sebe was put in custody he was replaced by Gen Makuse who was also removed in March the following year and replaced by Gen Zozi. And Zozi removed again six months later and replaced by Brig Takane. In February the follow year Brig Takane was removed and succeeded by Gen Makuzi. Is this what was taking place in Ciskei at the time?
MR MAKOM: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: In other words, nobody could be trusted even in the Security Police and in the Security Forces themselves?
MR MAKOM: Yes, I will add on the fact mentioned by Mr Thoba that even Mr Gendani was charged, because at that time there was not even trust by the Government even on high ranking officers.
MR HOLE: You have read Mr Thoba's affidavit and in there is reference to the trial of Mr Mlungisi Genda. In that annexure,
the particulars given by the State alleged that Mr Genda was communicating with Mr Charles Sebe and he made copies of certain documents for him. Now Mr Chairman I am referring to Annexure Q, of the first applicant's affidavit, on page 80 of the bundle by Mr Thoba.
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir it is so.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 42 MR MAKOM
MR HOLE: You confirm also that Mr Genda was brutalised by members of the Elite Unit?
MR MAKOM: Yes it is so Sir.
MR HOLE: Do you recall what treatment he was given?
MR MAKOM: I was not one of those members but I just heard that he was beaten by those four Captains. And there was a court procedure because of that where they were sentenced and their fine was paid by the State. If I can remember clearly each of them was fined R600,00 but that was paid by the State.
MR HOLE: To bring you back to the Elite Unit Sir, you say in your statement that the Elite Unit reported directly to the President of the country.
MR MAKOM: Yes, it is so.
MR HOLE: Can you tell us who was the head of the Elite Unit?
MR MAKOM: It was Kwane Sebe, son of the late President. He was heading the Elite Unit.
MR HOLE: In other words reported to his father about the activities of his unit?
MR MAKOM: Yes it is so, Sir.
MR HOLE: And some of the chief enemies of the Ciskei state were in fact brothers of the President, is that correct?
MR MAKOM: Yes it is so, Sir.
MR HOLE: For instance Mr Charles Sebe and Mr Namba Sebe and
their sons?
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir.
MR HOLE: You allude to an attack on the home of President Sebe, sometime during 1987.
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir.
MR HOLE: And you say that troops of the Transkei Defence Force were used in this attack?
MR MAKOM: Yes Sir, it is so.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 43 MR MAKOM
MR HOLE: And you also say in one of the annexures, Annexure D and Annexure F of your statement that a mercenary, a French National, Mr Desville was also used in the attack on the President's home.
JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't say it, he annexes newspaper reports that say it.
MR HOLE: Perhaps it is clumsily put, Mr Commissioner, that is so. It is Annexure D and Annexure F of his affidavit, Mr Chairman. Sir, are you aware of incidents where people whose origin could be traced back to Transkei were in fact repatriated by the Ciskei State?
MR MAKOM: I know about the soldiers who came to Bisho. One soldier died because there was a lot of shooting. Templeton Nondela, he is the one who died. He was released after negotiations. This was under Gen Bantu Holomisa who was at the time in power.
JUDGE MALL: What is the purpose of all this Mr Hole, this evidence?
MR HOLE: Mr Chairman, I am trying as much as possible to draw a full picture for the Committee to view whatever acts may have been committed by these applicants, within a full context of what uwas happening at the time. It might perhaps not be easy to
understand why some of these acts had taken place, but I will not proceed in this line any further. I think I've (...indistinct)
JUDGE MALL: I am not stopping you. I just wanted some clarity in my mind.
MR HOLE: Mr Makom, you are also, Sir, making application in respect of Miss Msutwana and if I recall correctly you were acquitted, rather were not even charged with the assault on her.
MR MAKOM: When I made an application I thought it was necessary to mention this because I was there when she was being tortured. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 44 MR MAKOM
At a certain stage I also tortured her even though I was not there all the time. I left the others, continuing with the torturing. But after the Reconciliation Act I thought it was necessary to reconcile with her, because truly no matter what the circumstances were at the time she was tortured and ill-treated. I ask for forgiveness from Miss Msutwana. I ask for reconciliation, that we walk hand in hand into the new South Africa, because I did not fight with her personally, even Mr Simandla, Mrs Nomoy or her sister Nomanlungela. I ask for forgiveness today. I am sorry.
Because on reflection in jail, even though past deeds were perpetrated on our people, it was never my aim as a policeman, but I was on duty. I would have been in trouble if I did not show that I would stand up and protect the Ciskeian Government of the day.
MR HOLE: Sir can you tell the Committee how long do you still have to sit in custody in respect of the offences of which you are convicted?
MR MAKOM: I was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. On
the 20 November this year I am supposed to be released.
MR HOLE: That is all the questions I wish to put to this witness thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOLE
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Makom you were, if you remember, directly implicated by Miss Msutwana during the criminal trial of your co-applicant in her assault.
MR MAKOM: I cannot remember well whether she did say so or not Ma'am, because there were a lot of cases facing us at the time. What I remember properly is that I was not charged on her case or sentenced.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink, did I ask you earlier if you had any
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 45 MR MAKOM
questions? Mr Brink I thought you told me you had no questions?
MR BRINK: I did not answer your question, because it
was not put to me with respect. I think it was put to Mr Hole.
JUDGE MALL: Misunderstanding, I am sorry.
MR BRINK: Indeed, that is all right. I will not be long.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Makom, you likewise at the time were a lieutenant.
MR MAKOM: No, I was a Sergeant. I became a Lieutenant later on.
MR BRINK: I just want to put to you, maybe you personally were not involved, but the victims asked me to put these questions to you, which I propose to do.
Is it correct that after the assault on Brig Simandla he was left without medication for some nine days until Maj Vuso called the doctor?
MR MAKOM: Yes, it is the truth, because according to the law,
after we have completed our jobs we leave the detainee in jail then the Station Commander in the police station of that particular prison, if Mr Simandla requested a doctor, he was meant to have been taken to the doctor. It is the truth that we left him without care or medication at the time.
MR BRINK: And in so far as Miss Msutwana is concerned is it correct that the Station Master did at some stage ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Station Commander, not Station Master.
MR BRINK: I beg your pardon, Station Commander, did he arrange for this victim to be taken to hospital? She was in fact transported to hospital, but one or other or all of you went to the hospital and brought her back before a doctor could attend to her.
MR MAKOM: I cannot dispute that Sir, but that did not come to
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 46 MR MAKOM
my knowledge.
MR BRINK: I see. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole, any re-examination?
MR HOLE: I have none. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HOLE
WITNESS EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 47 BRIG SIMANDLA
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused. Do you want to proceed with the next applicant?
MR HOLE: That was our last applicant, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: I merely want to give an opportunity to Brig Simandla to make a statement. If you wouldn't mind Brigadier just go to the other side and introduce yourself.
I do not think there is any need for this gentleman to be sworn in. He is not giving evidence. He just wants to ask questions about reconciliation.
JUDGE MALL: Perhaps you can start off by getting his full name for the purpose of the record?
MR BRINK: Would you give the Committee your full names Brigadier?
BONISILE DAVID SIMANDLA:
MR BRINK: You are the gentleman who has been referred to during the course of this application as having been assaulted during the problems which arose concerning these applications. Is that correct?
BRIG SIMANDLA: Yes Sir that is correct.
MR BRINK: Would you tell the Committee what your
attitude is towards the grant or refusal of amnesty to these three applicants who testified this morning?
BRIG SIMANDLA: As I was working in the Ciskei the circumstances under which the Ciskeian Police worked was abnormal. They did ill-treat people and torture people but there is a fact that must be known, they enjoyed it. Even if they were instructed that they should beat people up they were not given instructions to per se to beat them. They were just merely given instructions to investigate about the truth.
I would assume that they were taken for training and given EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 48 BRIG SIMANDLA
proper training as to how to get information from people, without torturing the people.
I want to talk specifically about my case. I want to dispute the fact that I was Head of Prison at the time. I was a Commander. I had nothing to do with the prisons. There was a Head of Prison in jail. They did not investigate his situation at all.
I want to refer to the issue about the keys. I reported to them. They were meant to give a report to Noqela and Pasha. They did not go to them. Therefore, they were meant to come to me directly. ...(intervention)
MR BRINK: Sorry Brigadier, I don't want to interrupt you,
the Committee is really concerned to ascertain whether or not these applicants, in the light of the evidence they have given, and the information they have provided should be granted amnesty, And I think what the Committee is more interested to hear from you is what your attitude is and whether you would like the Committee to make a recommendation that would be referred to the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee, so that possibly damages can be obtained for you, by reason of your previous assaults. This is merely to find out what your attitude is towards amnesty.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Brink have you canvassed Mr Simandla's view with regard to the substance of the application, whether he wants to oppose the application? I am just basing my view on his remarks.
MR BRINK: I did canvass it with him earlier, as I indicated to the Committee at an earlier stage but he indicated that in the interests of reconciliation he did not oppose the application, but he indicated firstly the whole truth hadn't been told. I did not want to call him to give details as to that but merely EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 49 BRIG SIMANDLA
to satisfy you that he does not oppose the grant for amnesty.
JUDGE MALL: If he gives evidence which goes contrary to what the applicants have said, one or other of the applicants has said it may then be necessary for him to be cross-examined in order to find out which version is acceptable. He has not taken an oath to give evidence in that regard and if it is still your wish to confine his comments to the issue that you talk about then perhaps he should get going with that.
MR BRINK: Yes. Would you indicate to the Committee Brigadier, what your attitude is. You indicated to me this morning, you will recollect, that you thought although you were not happy and you believe these people enjoyed doing what they did to you you thought in the interests of reconciliation you would not oppose amnesty. I am quite neutral in this affair, but I would like to have your views.
BRIG SIMANDLA: As I said I am not opposing this application, because of our country, South Africa, and its endeavour to reach a point of reconciliation, I am not disputing or against the amnesty.
MR BRINK: Thank you Brigadier.
BRIG SIMANDLA: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
BRIG SIMANDLA EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 50 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: Yes, where do we proceed from here Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: I do not propose calling any more, or any witnesses for that matter. I had discussed the matter with Miss Msutwana
through the briefer with her and I do not propose calling witnesses.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole?
MR HOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Are these the only clients that you represent?
MR HOLE: These are the only people I represent in this application.
JUDGE MALL: Do you wish to address us?
MR HOLE: If I may.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please.
MR HOLE ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Honourable members of the Committee you have heard the evidence by these applicants. They have sketched a story of having been members of a Security Unit in the Ciskei Police, specifically called the Elite Unit.
It does seem to be common cause that whatever acts, deeds or crimes that they stand before you in respect of, these were committed in the course and scope of their employment as members of the Security Forces of the government of the day in the former state of Ciskei.
A question has to be answered whether these acts that they have confessed to confirms with the definition of the Act in respect of which this Committee may extend amnesty. In my submission, Mr Chairman, the offences or the acts that they have made themselves guilty of, which they have now confessed before this Honourable Committee, are offences or deeds or acts or missions as defined in the Act.
It also has to be asked whether they have made application which complies with the requirements of this Act and in my
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 51 ADDRESS
submission they have. They have made a proper application which were duly processed by the Logistic Unit of the Commission and it was decided that a hearing should be held and the hearing has duly been held and they have been afforded an opportunity to state their case and in my submission the acts of which they have made themselves guilty of relate to an act associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflict of the past.
The Committee will recall the evidence they have given at large about their political situation in the country which they served at the time, the tensions between the so-called states of Transkei and Ciskei and the role that the security forces had to play to try and calm the situation.
It will also be asked by the Committee whether they have made a full disclosure of the relevant facts. In my submission Mr Chairman, they have, in fact in two instances, if I am not mistaken, they have even applied for amnesty in respect of offences for which they were not even been convicted of.
We are here dealing with convicted persons who are sitting in jail and it would not make their case any lighter if they confess to other deeds than for which they are sitting in jail, but in the case of Mr Makom for instance, the third applicant, he has confessed to the torture and assault on Miss Msutwana. Mr Thoba and Mr Thompson have also confessed to the assault on Miss Maqoma. The Committee will recall their evidence to the effect that they were acquitted in respect of these assaults, but they have laid their souls bare to the Committee and confessed heir guilt in respect of these.
The Committee, Mr Chairman, will recall that extracts of the judgment by the Regional Court magistrate and in one instance the Supreme Court of Ciskei, detailing the assault, some of it very EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 52 ADDRESS
tviolent, which they perpetrated on these victims, were put to them and they readily admitted their complicity in those offences. In my submission they have thereby satisfied the requirements of Section 20 of the Act regarding the granting of amnesty to applicants.
Perhaps I should now, Mr Chairman, deal with whether or not the acts they have made themselves guilty of, the acts for which they seek this tribunal's amnesty are according to the definition acts or missions which were done with the political objective which were advised or planned or directed or committed within or outside the Republic.
It is common cause, Mr Chairman, that they were members of the state security forces. It is common cause that at some instance some of them were commanded and at one instance one of them was in command of an interrogation team. It is common cause also that, as I have stated before their interrogations were in terms of an Act of Parliament, the National Security Act of Ciskei, which enabled agents of the state to detain and question persons who were held indefinitely at times at the pleasure of the state. So, there is no dispute as to the official nature of these detentions, but a question might be asked, Mr Chairman, whether acts such as these, the undressing of a lady, the abusing of a lady, pouring her over with water and applying a substance which had a burning effect on her private parts, or switching on a fan and place it next to a lady who is
unconscious in order to revive her, could be acts as contemplated by this Act. In my submission, Mr Chairman, all these acts were.
This Committee has heard quite gruesome acts perpetrated in the name of the state. In some instances, Mr Chairman, murders were committed and people came forward and confessed to murders EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 53 ADDRESS
of persons for a political objective.
In this present case, Mr Chairman, people, especially women were given the worst treatment one can imagine, short of killing them, but having said this I wish to say that it is indeed an act contemplated by this Act.
One might perhaps ask why not simply slap her around, why not kick her or why not shove her against the wall? But it does appear that the whole object, Mr Chairman, was to instil fear. The whole object was to make anybody afraid, or shall I use the term Mr Chairman, the whole object was to terrorise members of a political organisation which sought to overthrow the government of the day. Whether this government was legitimate or not is now besides the point, but what was done, Mr Chairman is that terror was used, extreme fear was unleashed on people for two reasons. One, to gain information from them about their activities or the activities of members of Illisolomzi who might be in Ciskei or about the escape of Mr Charles Sebe from prison, or the people who assisted him to jump prison and the abduction of the Head of the Elite Unit, General Kwane Sebe.
The other objective Mr Chairman, was to instil as much fear in the hearts of anybody who associated himself, sympathised with or was a member of this political organisation Illisolomzi, or the Ciskei Peoples' Rights Protection Party.
Perhaps the difference would be in the methods used in instilling fear and terror, but I think the Committee will agree with me that we have lived through very terrible times. At some instances hit squads were used to mow down people, women and children in the name of the government. In some instances women and children were killed in the name of the struggle.
And in the present case before this honourable Committee a man and women were tortured very severely, I readily concede, but EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 54 ADDRESS
this was still in the name of the government of the day, the government of President Lennox Sebe.
If one has a look at Section 20, Subsection 3(B) of the Act, the Act reads:
"Whether a particular act, mission or offence contemplated in Subsection 2 is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following: the motive of the person who committed the act, mission or offence".
I have already submitted Mr Chairman that this was to instil fear and to extract information for the government of the day and
b) the context in which the act, or mission or offence took place, and in particular whether the act, mission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in reaction thereto."
Clearly, Mr Chairman, there were treasonable acts being done in Ciskei, according to the laws of Ciskei at that time. People were detained, a member and the Head of the Elite Unit, the son of the President was abducted and taken to Transkei, people claimed responsibility for detaining him, a neighbouring state was training troops to overthrow Ciskei, pamphlets were distributed by Illisolomzi in Ciskei, inciting and fanning the flames of revolution in Ciskei. The Security Police of which these applicants were members had to act against this kind of conduct.
Rightly or wrongly, Mr Chairman, but what they did in my submission they did in reaction to acts of a political uprising or a disturbance.
If one had regard to Subsection 3(D) of Section 20 which enjoins us to look at the object or objective of the act, or
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 55 ADDRESS
mission, or offence, and in particular whether the act, or mission, or offence was primarily directed at a political opponent, or state property or personnel or against private property or individuals.
In my submission, Mr Chairman, the acts of these people, the applicants, gruesome as they may have been, were directed against people perceived to belong to Illisolomzi or have association with members of Illisolomzi or agents of Illisolomzi. Whether this information was correct or not, in my submission, does not affect the case either way.
What we should look at, Mr Chairman, is the state of mind of the applicants at the time. Whether they believed that these people had this information. They have given evidence, Mr Chairman, to say there was a whole lot of information about Brig Simandla, the question about the key having been lost, which the Brigadier has also alluded to in his unsworn statement. There was a question of the guard who was not posted at the tower. There was a question of the guards who were disarmed, shortly before the assault on the prison and all these things, the
relations between Miss Msutwana, her sister and Gen Charles Sebe who has escaped from custody. The information that the Elite Unit had that she was acting as an agent or a contact of Mr Sebe. In respect of Mrs Nomoy ...(intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: Can I just interpose there Mr Hole, but insofar as Miss Msutwana is concerned the evidence before us, is that she was not particularly involved in the activities of Illisolomzi. She was only related to a sister of Charles Sebe's girlfriend. And there is no evidence also linking the sister to the activities of Illisolomzi. How can you draw such an inference?
MR HOLE: Honourable Commissioner, if one recalls the evidence of these applicants they do concede that Miss Msutwana was a
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 56 ADDRESS
sister to a girlfriend of Gen Charles Sebe, but they go further than that, Honourable Commissioner, they say:
"The Elite Unit had information that she was a contact between Charles Sebe and in that capacity she was being used by Charles Sebe to communicate between Charles Sebe and her sister."
MS KHAMPEPE: There is no evidence that her sister was involved with Illisolomzi. I mean for all that we can take care of is that we can take into account that the link might have been concerning the affairs of the heart. I mean here was General - I mean, Mr Charles Sebe wanting to make contact with the sister in connection with affairs which had no relation to the political activities of himself as a member of Illisolomzi.
MR HOLE: I take the point given by the Honourable Member of the Committee, but if we were to look at the Act under which these people were detained, they were detained in terms of the National Security Act. This is an Act which was passed to enable police, to give them extra powers to detain and question persons in respect with subversive activities.
JUDGE WILSON: But wasn't their main interest in respect of her to discover how the contact was made, who the contact people were who were bringing messages or taking messages to Charles Sebe, who was a very dangerous man in an adjoining country? And that is what they wanted from her was it not? Information as to how contact was made.
MR HOLE: That and much more perhaps. One can imagine a situation where people did not have much information and they were looking for as much information as they can get. If one looks at the judgment of Judge Pickard he sketches Charles Sebe's profile in a very distinct way. This was the Commander General of all the Ciskei forces. He commanded all their Army
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 57 ADDRESS
formations, the Police formations and this was the brother to the President. He had defected to a neighbouring state, there were rumours of armed bandits being trained and there was even an infiltration and an attack on the President.
Surely, you would not have expected the police to question her about matters of the heart. Surely they would have questioned her about a pending assault on the President, about a coup, about army bandits who were being trained in a foreign country?
Dealing with the further submissions by these applicants ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I understand them vigorously questioning
Charles Sebe's lady friend to find out what information she has received, what information she is to pass on to his followers if he had any, but to extend that to a sister of this lady and to subject her to the kind of torture that she has been subjected to is something that cannot be easily justified. They knew beforehand that she was merely the sister of the lady and if anybody had information it would be the sister and not she.
MR HOLE: That might be a point, Mr Chairman, but again I wish to ask the Committee to look at it against the background that in one of the affidavits by Mr Thoba. Mr Thoba says:
"Soon they realised that they were not only dealing with Charles Sebe, but dealing with a more powerful organisation than themselves, an organisation that could even outwit, outmanoeuvre them."
One get a situation where the police did not know where to start. The police had no leads. The head of the Elite Unit had been abducted, put in a car and taken to Transkei. Mr Charles Sebe had been sprung out from jail by White people. There was shooting. One can understand the state of mind of these people. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 58 ADDRESS
These were junior officers some of them. At least they were not ranked like Gen Charles Sebe, like Gen Kwane Sebe or Col Panzi who gave all the orders. The highest ranking seems to have been a captain, Mr Katangana at some stage and a lieutenant at some stage.
One cannot impute much creativeness to them. One cannot impute much sophistication to these people. It appeared that the people that they got, namely these victims, they tried to extract as much as information as they could from them. And in two cases the Committee already knows that they failed dismally, because it appears that these people did not know anything. But what is clear Mr Chairman, is that the assaults on these people did not seem to be assaults that had no purpose.
JUDGE MALL: Didn't what?
MR HOLE: Did not seem to be assaults that had no purpose that was being tried to achieve.
JUDGE MALL: I thought that you said that the purpose was to instil fear.
MR HOLE: That and more, to instil fear and to get information if possible. And in the case of Mr Maqoma and Mrs Nomoy the affidavits do say they did get some information.
If one reads the affidavit of Makom one will see that he does say:
"There were reports, there was information that they gave about an attack on the President's house."
JUDGE MALL: Just give us a quick reference to ...(intervention)
MR HOLE: Mr Jonki Nkosi Makom. I am trying to find the exact....
MS KHAMPEPE: It is on page 6, at paragraph 36.
MR HOLE: Thank you, Commissioner. There is this reference to an impending attack which they obtained and he says:
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 59 ADDRESS
"The Elite Unit had information that there was going to be this attack."
And if one looks at the evidence of Mr Thompson and Mr Thoba, especially the annexures that are given by them, Mr Chairman I am referring to the annexure, relating to the case of Gen Genda, Col Genda, where detailed evidence was given by a W/O Magaoli of the Elite Unit who had infiltrated the Illisolomzi. Who gave information and testified in court about the plans that Illisolomzi had about toppling the Ciskeian government. He gives a graphic picture of the infiltration of the presidential guard and the capturing of the President, taking him to Radio
Ciskei where he would be forced to make a statement in terms of which he will be standing down.
There is also reference to the President, being killed in the event of him refusing to step down. I think one should look at that picture against unsophisticated police who had very little evidence and who had three victims from which they had to get as much as possible.
If one looks as the affidavits of all of them they say pressure was being put on them to find the President's son alive.
If one looks at this broad picture one can see clearly that the act which these people were committing was directed at a political opponent and not just against private individuals. These were private individuals but they were linked to these organisations in the forms that I have just described.
Then, Mr Chairman, to proceed and look at whether the act, or mission, or offence was committed in the execution of an order or on behalf, or with the approval of the organisation or institution, liberation movement or body of which these people
were part. I think my remarks that I have just mentioned apply the same here.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
ME HOLE 61 ADDRESS
This was an attack more on the institution of Illisolomzi and its supporters than it was an attack on the individuals themselves. Brutality of an extreme kind was meted out to these people, but this was not just blind violence, this was violence meant to extend extreme terror to anybody who might want to join this organisation.
JUDGE WILSON: You keep saying, extend extreme terror, none of your applicants said that that was their intention. They said they were trying to interrogate these people, didn't they?
Where do you get this 'extreme terror' from?
MR HOLE: Honourable Committee member, a reading of all these applicants' affidavits can only leave one with one impression, that extreme terror was meted out to these people.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, for the purpose of getting information. Not - you're broadening it to say it was to terrify members of the organisation. They were ill-treating, brutally ill-treating these people to make them talk. Is it not what they have all said?
MR HOLE: That is what they have all said yes. Now, if I may proceed, Mr Chairman, to deal with the relationship between the act these people have made themselves guilty of and the attainment of their political objective.
It is my submission that submitting these people to
this kind of inhumane treatment was done with a view to getting these people to answer certain questions and to confess to certain deeds. The result of information that would have been obtained by them through this method would have been given to the Commander of these operations and in turn one can assume that the Commander would have given these to the President. The information they would have given would naturally have been intelligence that would have been useful for the political
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 62 ADDRESS
situation assessment. Information that would have been useful for the President's son to be found or information that would have been useful for them to know who exactly had sprung Charles Sebe from jail.
In my submission the acts they had made themselves guilty of were not remote from the political objective that they wished to seek.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hole, would a reasonable policeman have used the same means which your clients used subjecting the women under the humiliation they were subjected to in order to extract the information that they intended to extract from their victims?
MR HOLE: Thank you, Honourable Member of the Committee. The idea of a reasonable policeman is a very elusive one. Certainly I cannot be heard to submit that we know of any in South Africa. The evidence we have heard from these people is that the methods that they have used on these people, except for Isixwapaxwapa which they admit for the first time, was what was used for interrogations throughout, when they joined the Elite Unit.
JUDGE MALL: That may be so, but the brutality of their methods, are they not out of all proportion to the kind of information that they were seeking from a girlfriend or Sebe or the sister of a girlfriend of Sebe for example? They are totally disproportionate to the objective that they had in mind.
MR HOLE: Mr Chairman, if one looked at the events in Ciskei at the time, if one looked at the fact that it was their own Commanding Officer who had been abducted, drugged and put in the boot of a car and taken by an opposing party to Transkei and which Transkei was hostile to the state that they was serving, one can understand how such extreme measures were used.
Also looking at the fact that these ladies were transported from Douglasdale Farm in the boot of a vehicle to the police
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 63 ADDRESS
station, one would assume that there would be people at the police station who would have seen them off-loading people from the boot. If one reads that scenario, Mr Chairman, one can see that it appears that even the Uniform Branch who might have been manning the Alice Police Station did not care two hoots about what was happening to these people, otherwise they would not have transported them to a police station in the boot of a car. This is the level to which the members serving in the Ciskei Police Force at the time had sunk. The transporting of a person in the boot of a car was also done to Gen Kwane Sebe, the son of the President, according to the affidavits of these people, when he was taken to Transkei.
In my submission Mr Chairman, these applicants have made a proper case for the extension of amnesty to them. I would, on the basis of this and my argument and the evidence that have tended before this Committee, request that the Committee may be pleased to grant amnesty to each one them in respect of each of these offences.
Unless the Committee wants to hear me on any further aspect, that would be my address on the merits of the matter. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink do you wish to address us?
MR BRINK ADDRESSES: Yes I will not be long. I see it is five past one, but if we could continue for a few minutes, it will give us time to get the next application ready if we conclude this one.
Yes, I have no difficulty with the aspects of full disclosure Mr Chairman and members of the Committee at all. And I also have no real difficulty with all things being equal, no difficulty with an assault which may have been perpetrated on a political detainee. The question is where does one draw the
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR HOLE 64 ADDRESS
line? You have here men having been charged with crimen injuria. That, in this particular case, amounts to an offence of a sexual nature. I have grave difficulty in seeing how an offence of that sort can be said to have been committed with a political objective in view.
I accept what my colleague has said in regard to the situation then prevailing in Ciskei. I accept that there
was an awful atmosphere, and I accept that everyone was being rounded up whenever there was the slightest suspicion of disloyalty to government - (Background very noisy.)
JUDGE MALL: You cannot compete with that noise.
MR BRINK: Certainly not. As I say I accept that there was -the situation then prevailing in Transkei was such that anyone who was vaguely suspected of being disloyal to the government would have been picked up, detained, beaten up, tortured and so on, yes, but the essence of the problem with which you're faced is whether an offence of a sexual nature can be regarded as having been committed with a political objective.
JUDGE WILSON: It was not of a sexual nature in any normal sense of the word was it, Mr Brink? It was torturing someone by administering some liquid to their sexual organs, it was not for any sexual gratification.
MR BRINK: Well, I say this with respect if you have a naked woman and you tell her to take off her underclothes, make her lie on the floor and then you mock at her genitalia.
JUDGE WILSON: You humiliate her as much as you can. You kick her around. It was absolute brutality and humiliation. It was not in the normal thing that people commit sexual offences to achieve some sort of sexual gratification. There is no suggestion of that here, is there?
MR BRINK: Well, if there had been improper sexual behaviour, EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 65 ADDRESS
in the sense that improper advances had been made I take your point, but there must have been some degree of gratification for these men to behave as they did, but I accept what you say, Mr Chairman, I accept what you say in regard to the - it wasn't a sexual offence in the ordinary accepted meaning of the term. I take the point.
In conclusion then I ask the Committee to please have these two victims referred, in terms of Section 22, to the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee.
JUDGE WILSON: It is a relevant factor isn't it which hasn't been mentioned by the applicants that while the attack on Miss Msutwana was taking place it was done in the presence from time to time of a Lt Col who was in charge of them, who walked in and out, who took part in the assault at times. He knew what was going on.
MR BRINK: Yes, that is relevant in regard to all of this. I presume or condoning the behaviour. Of course there is no evidence that that person himself gave a specific order for the assaults to take place, but he certainly associated himself with them.
JUDGE WILSON: Well he kicked her himself. And the other factor that I think is relevant to indicate the attitude of the Ciskei Police as a whole is the effort made by Col Simandla, to make known what had happened to him and was just ignored. He told the Station Commander, he said oh nothing can be done about it. He told a visiting Colonel, nothing was done. He saw the injuries, but apparently no further reports were made, it was allowed to drift on, which would appear to indicate that it was accepted by those higher ranking and in other things that this was the way things happened in the Ciskei at the time.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 66 ADDRESS
MR BRINK: I agree.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Hole do you wish to reply?
MR HOLE: I have nothing to say in reply. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will consider the application and make known its decision in due course. Thank you.
We will adjourn now and resume at two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
67
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 17-03-1997 NAME: NSITSIKELO DON JOHNSON
DAY: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee this is the application of Nsitsikelo Don Johnson who is seeking amnesty in respect of attempted murder and the illegal possession of a firearm.
The Investigative Unit informed me during January that they had been, at my request, to see the victim, who is Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, with the view to obtaining a statement from her. She, however, declined to make a statement and advised the investigator that she was not interested in the amnesty or the Truth Commission, so she was completely uncooperative. Nonetheless, she has been served by registered post with a Form to a Notice and I don't know whether she is here but I very much doubt it. I would just call her name. Is Mrs Nomsa Hanabe here? She is not present.
I understand that the applicant, for moral reasons, does not want to take the oath so he would be affirmed or affirmation administered to him.
I just leave my learned friend to place himself on record.
NSITSIKELO DON JOHNSON: (affirms)
EXAMINATION MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. Members of the Committee, I confirm that I appear on behalf of the applicant Nsitsikelo Don Johnson in this matter. I only this morning became aware of the fact that only a handwritten application was made available to you. I have caused copies of the typed application to be made available. Can I find out, Mr Chairman, EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 68 MR JOHNSON
whether you have a copy of that?
JUDGE MALL: We now do have. Thank you.
MR BLOEM: I am sorry about that. I was totally unaware of it.
Mr Chairman, from Annexure A to the application you will note that the applicant does not state the facts surrounding the offences for which he seeks amnesty. The intention is to lead the applicant in that regard and to contextualise the events.
May I proceed to leading the applicant in that regard?
JUDGE MALL: Before you do that, I think Mr Brink you appreciate the position that in applications of this kind at least one of the requirements is that an applicant must set out the detail of the offence and how it was committed, in respect of which he is seeking amnesty. Very well.
EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson, these offences were committed in Uitenhage. Is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: But they were planned in Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: Now what is your connection to Klipplaat? What were you doing in Klipplaat at the time?
MR JOHNSON: I am originally from Uitenhage. I grew up in Uitenhage. I have family members in Klipplaat, my brother and my aunt. This is how I went to Klipplaat.
Also in matters of the struggle they would connect me with Klipplaat.
MR BLOEM: You were schooling in Klipplaat. Correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I was schooling in Klipplaat.
MR BLOEM: And in that school did you hold any position be it in social organisations or any other organisations related to the school?
MR JOHNSON: I was a founding member of the SRC, I was elected EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 69 MR JOHNSON
as the President of the SRC at school.
MR BLOEM: And in the broader community, did you hold any
positions?
MR JOHNSON: I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League. I was an organiser also in the SACP. Those were the organisations that were accessible to us at the time.
MR BLOEM: That was your position. What was the position of Mrs Hanabe in the community of Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: She was a Deputy Principal at my school. She was also a Mayoress at Klipplaat. These are the people that we referred to as 'puppets'.
MR BLOEM: And what was your attitude and the attitude of the organisations which you represented towards people like Mrs Hanabe at the time?
MR JOHNSON: In the entire South Africa they were seen as people who were terribly unrighteous, because they facilitated the oppressive ways of the apartheid era in our communities.
MR BLOEM: Was there any cooperation between your
organisation and Mrs Hanabe?
MR JOHNSON: No not at all. What Mrs Hanabe did it was just for herself. She was not representing and working for the interests of the community. She just wanted to see the people of Klipplaat on their knees.
JUDGE WILSON: I didn't hear that last word, "wanted to see the people of Klipplaat...."
MR JOHNSON: She wanted to see the people of Klipplaat on their knees.
JUDGE MALL: Why if she was the Mayoress, would she want people on their knees?
MR JOHNSON: Because people did not like her as she did not care for anyone. There was a discrepancy between the two groups. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 70 MR JOHNSON
She would tell the people that there was nothing that she would do for them. These were the things that she would say. She had no interest at heart for the people of Klipplaat.
(The speaker's microphone is not on.)
MR BLOEM: There was a call for Councillors to resign during that period, is that correct?
JUDGE MALL: By who?
MR BLOEM: Maybe the witness, Mr Johnson should tell us. Let me rephrase it, is it correct that there was a call by the community at large for Councillors to resign in Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is true. There were boycotts, so that these puppet people could resign.
MR BLOEM: Did the Councillors resign?
MR JOHNSON: Some of them did resign. She is the only one who told us that she would never resign and she would continue with her job as she pleased, whether the community liked that or not.
MR BLOEM: Like for instance cutting off the water supply to people? Is it correct that when she refused to resign she retaliated by causing peoples' water supply to be cut off?
MR JOHNSON: When she realised that most of the community was against her she retaliated by stopping the water supply and also the bucket system that was used for toilets in Klipplaat was stunted.
MR BLOEM: As a result of that there was a mass meeting which was held in Klipplaat, is it correct? Can you tell us what decision was taken at that mass meeting?
MR JOHNSON: As the community was trying to make her resign, we than decided as the community at the meeting that if we want her out of the way she should be eliminated. That was the
conclusion.
JUDGE WILSON: A meeting of who was this?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 71 MR JOHNSON
MR JOHNSON: It was a mass meeting. There were a lot of people. I was one of the people who was at the meeting.
JUDGE WILSON: Who organised the meeting?
MR JOHNSON: The Peoples' Organisation.
JUDGE WILSON: Who is that? Who is the Peoples' Organisation?
MR JOHNSON: The African National Congress.
JUDGE WILSON: It took you a long time to say that, are you trying to conceal things? Why did you not tell me at the beginning that it was organised by the ANC?
MR JOHNSON: I did not realise that you were specifically asking for the name of the organisation.
JUDGE WILSON: My question to you was who organised the meeting. I couldn't have been much clearer than that could I?
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, who in the ANC convened that meeting.? Was it the Chairperson of the local branch of the ANC who convened that meeting? Was it a meeting convened by the ANC Youth League in the community?
MR JOHNSON: It was comrade Jongikaya Lucas and comrade Mannetjie Blaauw.
MS KHAMPEPE: Who are they Mr Johnson? Were they members of the ANC? Did they hold any particular office?
MR JOHNSON: Comrade Lucas was the Chairperson of the ANC Youth League so they did hold certain seats within the ANC.
JUDGE WILSON: Was this meeting arranged by the ANC Youth League?
MR JOHNSON: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Is this the meeting which was convened on the 12
February 1991?
MR JOHNSON: The meeting that was on the 12th of February was the meeting when the tripartite alliance met, the ANC, South African Communist Party and Cosatu. This is where we reached EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 72 MR JOHNSON
a conclusion that Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated and how.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now the meeting that you have just alluded to now on which date was that meeting convened, the one that you have just referred to us now? When Jonikaya Lucas convened as Chairperson of the ANC.
MR JOHNSON: It was on the same day, the 12 February. After that mass meeting we went to meet as the Executive on the side. We were planning how Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated.
MR BLOEM: Now Mr Johnson as a result of that decision which was taken at the meeting on the 12th of February 1991 you then with two other people went to Uitenhage where you committed these offences on the 14th, two days after this meeting in Uitenhage. Is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Who were these two other people?
MR JOHNSON: Comrade Jonkikaya Lucas and comrade Simpiwa Saki from Klipplaat.
JUDGE WILSON: Sipiwa Jonikaya Lucas, is that the man you said was Chairman of the ANC Youth League?
MR JOHNSON: Yes that is the one, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: What about Simpiwa Saki?
...(tape ends)
MR JOHNSON: Yes we went together.
JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.
MR BLOEM: Thank you. The incident occurred approximately 7
o'clock that evening. Will you please take us through the events of that evening at or near the church in Uitenhage.
MR JOHNSON: On the 14th of February 1991 we took our arms and we set out for Mrs Hanabe at the Congregational Church in Uitenhage, Aona Street. We did not see her car because we went to check, I remember. When we got there we did not see her car. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 73 MR JOHNSON
We waited for about 30 minutes. We then saw her car coming towards the church. She parked next to a tree. She got out of the car, walked to the church. We waited another few minutes then we walked into the church. This was about 8 o'clock. We waited for her under the tree, because we knew that after church she would walk to her car. We were sure that she was not going to see us, because it was dark under the tree.
At about five past eight the church service was over. She got to the car, as she opened the door, I was the one who shot at her. I shot her and then we left.
MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson how far were you from Mrs Hanabe when you fired the shots at her?
MR JOHNSON: The distance was approximately from the place I was sitting up to the stage, where your table is.
JUDGE MALL: Three paces?
MR JOHNSON: Perhaps I can get up and demonstrate, is that alright?
JUDGE MALL: What do you say? About three paces Mr Brink or less?
MR BRINK: I think more.
JUDGE WILSON: Demonstrate.
JUDGE MALL: Show us how far, how many steps.
MR JOHNSON: It is the distance from the table to the stage. MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson how many shots did you fire at Mrs
Hanabe?
MR JOHNSON: Five shots.
MR BLOEM: What was your aim? What was your intention?
MR JOHNSON: I wanted to kill her so that she is totally eliminated from our community, because the problem within the community erupted from her.
MR BLOEM: Now we all know that fortunately Mrs Hanabe did not EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 74 MR JOHNSON
die but she was severely injured. Is that correct to say?
MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir.
MR BLOEM: In fact she gave evidence against you at your subsequent trial.
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: Can you give an indication of what happened to her as a result of the shots? What is her condition?
MR JOHNSON: I do not know exactly as I am in jail, but after we shot her she was taken to Tygerberg Hospital.
MR BLOEM: What I want to know Mr Johnson is at the time when she gave evidence at your trial what was her condition like?
MR JOHNSON: When she went to give evidence against me I could see that she was not very well but she was walking on her legs.
MR BLOEM: She was not in a wheelchair was she?
MR JOHNSON: No.
MR BLOEM: There is just one aspect I want to cover with you in your evidence. Do you know a group by the name of AmaAfrica?
JUDGE MALL: I did not hear that name?
MR BLOEM: AmaAfrica, Mr Chairman.
MR JOHNSON: It's not AmaAfrica. There were gangsters called AmaAfrica in Uitenhage. I know some of the people who belonged
to that group. These people would kill members of the African National Congress.
When we discovered that they went to Klipplaat, organised by Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, there is one of their members whose name is Zola Sikiwe. He told us that as members of AmaAfrica they were given a list by Nomsa Hanabe concerning people from the ANC who should be eliminated. I was one of the people that were on the list.
MR BLOEM: If Mrs Hanabe was here today what would you have said to her?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 75 MR JOHNSON
MR JOHNSON: If Mrs Hanabe was here today, as we are all aware that we are trying to reconcile within our country. What I would say to her is I ask for forgiveness for what I have done to you. MR BLOEM: Have you made any attempts to relay that message across to her?
MR JOHNSON: I have never got a chance before to give her this message, because I was proud of what I had done, because I was doing it for my community. But in retrospect, I realise that now in 1997 things have changed. What we were struggling for we have accomplished. My wish now is to apologise and ask for forgiveness personally to Mrs Hanabe. This is why I am before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission today. I trust that Mrs Hanabe will get my message although she is not present here
today.
MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman. That is the evidence of the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM
JUDGE MALL: Any questions, Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: Yes please Sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Johnson you were the only person who was convicted of this crime were you?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is me alone.
MR BRINK: Now I just want to clear one or two points. You remember you submitted an application form in manuscript. I think that was received in January last year, then it was sent back to you and finally came back to the Committee on the 15 May. Do you remember that? Your manuscript, the one you wrote out. Would you like to look at it, or a copy of it?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I would like to look at it please.
MR BRINK: Would you have a look particularly at page 4 of that application and that relating to paragraph 10(B). I want to read EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 76 MR JOHNSON
it to you and you must tell me whether it is correct.
"Typical of all our people who served in government- created structures Mrs Nomsa Hanabe saw herself as being accountable to the local authorities and not to the Klipplaat community."
Do you remember that?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember.
MR BRINK: And you carried on:
"Attempts to reason with her and her Councillors were made by the community but all in vain."
Do you remember that?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember.
MR BRINK: Then you continued:
"It was after her house was burned down and after she fled to Uitenhage that her Councillors resigned."
MR JOHNSON: It is so.
MR BRINK: I just want to ask you at this stage. Were you responsible or any one that you knew responsible for the burning down of her house?
MR JOHNSON: I was not responsible for burning down her house. I do know a number of comrades who were responsible for this.
MR BRINK: And the purpose of burning down her house presumably was to drive her from Klipplaat to Uitenhage, or certainly drive her out of Klipplaat.
MR JOHNSON: Will you please repeat your question?
MR BRINK: The purpose of having her house burnt down was to drive her out of Klipplaat, is that correct?
JUDGE MALL: Where does that appear?
MR BRINK: The burning of the house appears in paragraph 10, page 4 of the original application. Have you found it Mr Chairman?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 77 MR JOHNSON
JUDGE MALL: No.
MR BRINK: I am referring to the original application. That is the manuscript one, page 4 of that application, paragraph 10(B), which starts "Typically all our people..."
JUDGE MALL: Yes. ..."It was all in vain. It was after her house was burned down that she fled to Uitenhage."
MR BRINK: That's correct. Yes.
JUDGE MALL: And then her Councillors resigned.
MR BRINK: Yes. So the purpose of burning down her house was
to make sure that she left Klipplaat and left you people in peace?
MR JOHNSON: The people wanted her personally, but she was
not there. Then her house was burnt. It was not an
original intention to burn her house down. The people wanted her personally.
MR BRINK: Did they not want to drive her out of Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: Yes, the major plan was to remove her from Klipplaat.
MR BRINK: Yes, right. Now ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: When you say that they wanted her personally, do you mean they wanted to kill her?
MR JOHNSON: I think so. I was not part of the planning for burning the house down, but I heard from other comrades that is what they wanted.
MR BRINK: Yes, in any event you went on to say in your original application:
"After the house was burnt and after she fled to Uitenhage her Councillors resigned."
Is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: And then you went on:
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 78 MR JOHNSON
"We left them ..."
presumably you left them alone,
".... because you also integrated them into the community".
in other words they came back to join you people. They were no longer puppets as I understand it.
MR JOHNSON: Yes, after they resigned we accepted them as members of the community, because they assured us that they would work for the community.
MR BRINK: At that stage, at the time Mrs Hanabe was shot, do I understand then that there were no Councillors in Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: She was the only one at the time, because she had stipulated that she would not resign.
MR BRINK: But at that stage she had already gone to Uitenhage. Is that not so?
MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: And there was no Council left in Klipplaat?
MR JOHNSON: There was no Council but she was still working. Even though she stayed in Uitenhage she would go to Klipplaat to work.
MR BRINK: Well she was a schoolteacher there, was she?
MR JOHNSON Yes Sir.
MR BRINK: Because you went on in your application to say,
"While exiled in Uitenhage she still effectively had control of Klipplaat".
Now that I don't understand. There is no Council, if she was a Mayoress she was Mayoress in name only because there was no Council.
MR JOHNSON: After the Councillors' houses were burnt down they resigned. She then went to Uitenhage. She had a house in Uitenhage, but she would regularly go to her office to work at Klipplaat. I do not know exactly how she operated, because she EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 79 MR JOHNSON
was still the Mayoress.
MR BRINK: She was a Mayoress over no Council at all. The Council did not exist, so she had no one to control, surely?
Do you understand me Mr Johnson, do you understand what I am trying to clear up with you? Here is a woman who is driven out, alright she has got an office in Klipplaat, she is driven out of Klipplaat to go to Uitenhage. Her Councillors resigned. There
is no Council left. And although she had not resigned she did not have a Council to govern.
MR JOHNSON: As a person who did not know how things worked exactly what I know is that the Councillors' houses were burnt down. They then were integrated back into the community. Mrs Hanabe, however, stipulated that as a Mayoress she would not step down. This is why we went after her.
JUDGE WILSON: But did she do anything as Mayoress after you had burnt her house?
MR JOHNSON: She stopped the water supply, the sanitation. All this she did whilst she still had a Council.
JUDGE WILSON: I am talking about after she had left and gone to Uitenhage, did she do anything at all?
MR JOHNSON: After she left she organised AmaAfrica to go and kill particular members of the organisation.
JUDGE WILSON: But she did nothing as Mayoress. You decided to kill her just because she would not resign. Is that it?
MR JOHNSON: Yes. It is because she would not resign and also the terrible deeds that were perpetrated on the community.
MR BRINK: You see, the difficulty I have, Mr Johnson, is that after Mrs Hanabe left Klipplaat, because her house had been burnt down, the fact that there was no longer a Council, the fact that she could no longer exercise Mayoral authority in Klipplaat, surely you ends had been achieved? This woman had been driven EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BRINK 80 MR JOHNSON
out of your community. She no longer had a house there. Why go to Uitenhage to kill her?
MR JOHNSON: As I clarified, the reason we went to Klipplaat for is because the community was against Mrs Hanabe, because of her status as a Mayoress and the things that she did. She organised AmaAfrica to kill some of our comrades. It was also at the forefront of our minds that she did not resign as a Mayoress.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, when did she organise AmaAfrica to kill members of the ANC?
MR JOHNSON: If I remember correctly she organised AmaAfrica in 1990.
MS KHAMPEPE: But you did not take any decision to kill her in 1990, the decision to kill her was taken in February of 1991. Wasn't the real reason why you decided to eliminate her the fact that she could not and would not succumb to your call for her to resign as the mayoress of the then local Council?
MR JOHNSON: Please repeat your question.
MS KHAMPEPE: You are saying that Mrs Hanabe organised AmaAfrica, that is the vigilante group in 1990 to kill members of the ANC. Now you decided to eliminate her only in February of 1991. Wasn't the real reason why you decided to eliminate her the fact that she would not succumb to your call for her to resign as the mayoress?
MR JOHNSON: The reason why we concluded that she should be eliminated in 1991 even though she had organised AmaAfrica in 1990, it was at the end of the year, that she organised AmaAfrica. They arrived the end of the year 1990, left and came back in January 1991, they beat one comrade and his bladder burst, M Mpati was his name. They came back in January 1991 and repeated the same acts. Therefore these deeds were from 1990 to EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MS KHAMPEPE 81 MR JOHNSON
1991. This is why we reached the conclusion that Mrs Hanabe
should be eliminated.
MS KHAMPEPE: Had she not organised for the vigilante group to attack members of the ANC, would you have still continued to take the decision to kill her?
MR JOHNSON: If she had not organised AmaAfrica and had resigned clearly like the other Councillors we would not have concluded that she should be eliminated.
JUDGE MALL: So as I have got your evidence, I have got it down as saying that the reason for killing her was that she was still Mayoress. That was the reason that you killed her, is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is because she would not resign as Mayoress and secondly the deeds like organising AmaAfrica and infiltrating them into the community.
JUDGE MALL: Now then do I understand that you people burnt down the houses of other Councillors as well, apart from her house?
MR JOHNSON: Yes some members of the Councillors' houses were burnt down.
JUDGE MALL: How many?
MR JOHNSON: Two houses that I remember. I was not part of burning down, but I remember two houses, in addition to her house.
JUDGE MALL: You were not against the idea of burning
down the houses?
MR JOHNSON: I could not stand against that because it was also my wish that they should step down.
JUDGE MALL: My question is that you were not against it. You went along with the decision that the houses should be burnt down. That is the position?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MS KHAMPEPE 82 MR JOHNSON
MR JOHNSON: Well I can say that I was not against such action.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson in your application on page 4 you said that,
"Attempts to reason with her and her Councillors were made by the community, all in vain".
what attempts did you make to dissuade her from further participation?
MR JOHNSON: As I was one of her students at school, we met with her as members of the SRC, and told her that she must concentrate on one job. Sometimes she would leave the school and attend Councillors' meeting and then she would come back and would give us a lot of work. We requested that she should focus on her job as a teacher or forfeit her job as a teacher and be a Mayoress.
MS KHAMPEPE: And when, Mr Johnson, were these attempts were made by you and the SRC members?
MR JOHNSON: These attempts were made in February 1990. In March 1990 when we first formed the SRC we tried to meet with her and tried to explain to her, to ask her to resign as a Mayoress and continue being a teacher.
JUDGE MALL: Did you know it was the policy of the ANC that people were not to be killed for political reasons?
MR JOHNSON: According to my knowledge as a member of the Youth Organisation when there were acts such as these since 1985, 1986 and 1987 we burnt peoples' houses in order to push our aim of the struggle. We saw that certain things came true and other people died because of the struggle.
JUDGE MALL: My question was not that, my question was did you know it was the policy of the ANC that people were not to be killed? That was the question.
MR JOHNSON: I was not aware because the community was angry and they were uncontrollable. I know that the African National
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE MALL 83 MR JOHNSON
Congress disagree with the killing of people.
JUDGE MALL: And despite that you took it upon yourself to go there with a gun and fire five shots at this unarmed, unprotected woman in the dark, so that you would not be seen. That is how brave you thought you were.
MR JOHNSON: As I have already said in my application that it was an instruction from the Executive Committee of Klipplaat. We were instructed by the Executive Committee that we have to eliminate Mrs Hanabe in this manner.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you not a member of the Executive Committee?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I was a member of the Executive Committee and we all agreed in that meeting, because I was also suffering as the community was suffering.
JUDGE WILSON: I noticed that you have not told us that you were Chairman of Cosas. You were weren't you?
MR JOHNSON: No I was not. No I was Chairman of SRC.
JUDGE WILSON: I am reading from the evidence that you gave I think at your trial which is part of the papers put before us.
"U en daardie Nomsa Hanabe. Is dit korrek dat julle nie langs dieselfde vuur gesit het nie?"
Is that the case?
MR JOHNSON: Can you please repeat the question?
JUDGE WILSON: What is the name of this unfortunate woman? Nomsa Hanabe. What you said in your evidence is,
"U en daardie Nomsa Hanabe is dit korrek dat julle nie langs dieselfde vuur gesit het nie?"
and your reply was,
"Ja dit is so".
Do you remember giving that evidence?
MR JOHNSON: No, no ...(not interpreted)
JUDGE MALL: And the next recorded thing is,
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE MALL 84 MR JOHNSON
"Wat is die redes daarvoor, die hoofredes sal dit....?"
And your answer was,
"Eerstens was sy my onderwyseres op skool, was 'n burgermeester terselfdertyd en 'n onderwyseres. Ek was die voorsitter van Cosas. Ek was ook die president van die Studenteraad."
Did you give that evidence?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I was the President of the SRC at school and I even declared that in my statement, and other evidence that I gave in court is that I did not say the absolute truth in court because I didn't want to admit guilt.
JUDGE WILSON: You said, "Ek was die Voorsitter van Cosas".
MR JOHNSON: What I can recall clearly is that I did mention that I was the President of the Student Representative Council at school, not Cosas. Even in my application ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Just don't talk about your application, let us just talk about your evidence in court. You have told us that you did not want to tell the court the truth, is that what you said just now? You did not want to tell the court the truth. The truth was that you were not the President of Cosas, but you did not want the court to know that. You told the court that you are the President of Cosas. Is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: No, I told the court that I was the President of the SRC, that was the genuine truth. ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Yes, no, we are talking about Cosas.
MR JOHNSON: I do not want to lie, I don't remember saying that I was the Chairperson of Cosas.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Johnson, was the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League, the Students Representive Council aware of the policy of the ANC then not to kill members who belonged to the EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MS KHAMPEPE 85 MR JOHNSON
local Councils?
MR JOHNSON: I am not sure whether they were aware thereof, but the decision was taken there and even if they were aware but we went beyond the policy of the ANC, because of the peoples' anger. And that is what led to the decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe from the community permanently. And that is how she was shot.
MS KHAMPEPE: You were a member of the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League, were you not?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MS KHAMPEPE: So if the Executive Committee was aware of that policy you would have known thereof. Were you aware of such a decision as an Executive member of the ANC Youth League?
MR JOHNSON: Which decision are you talking about?
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you aware of the policy not to eliminate members who belong to local Councils?
MR JOHNSON: No I was not aware of that policy. I personally was not aware of that policy. That is why I became one of the people who took the action against Mrs Hanabe. If I knew that there were such a policy I would have not been in this position today.
JUDGE MALL: That is not what you said two minutes ago. You said two minutes ago that the decision to kill was taken because of the anger of the people, we went beyond the policy of the ANC. That is what you said.
MR JOHNSON: Can you please repeat what you have just said.
JUDGE MALL: You said that the decision to kill Mrs Hanabe was taken because of the anger of the people. Do you understand?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I do.
JUDGE MALL: You said that we then went beyond the policy of the ANC to kill her.
MR JOHNSON: Yes Sir.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE MALL 87 MR JOHNSON
JUDGE MALL: So you knew you were going beyond the policy of the ANC.
MR JOHNSON: If we look into the matter clearly the ANC policy was not so clearly seen at the time because of the anger of the people. And when people are controlled by anger they regret their deeds afterwards.
JUDGE WILSON: Now you know you shot both her arms off don't you?
MR JOHNSON: Please repeat the question.
JUDGE WILSON: You know you shot both her arms off. You shot them both off at the elbows.
MR JOHNSON: Yes I did see her in court. She revealed herself in court.
JUDGE WILSON: And you had done the shooting with your five shots.
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Johnson you told us that as a result of these offences committed you were convicted, is it correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: And that was on the 25th of May 1994 in Uitenhage by the Regional Court.
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: And you were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. Is it correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: On this count?
MR BLOEM: All the counts were taken together. There were six counts altogether.
JUDGE WILSON: They were not. He got a sentence on each count. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 88 MR JOHNSON
They were to run concurrently. They were not taken together. If you look at the end of the thing on sentence, on the first count he was given three years imprisonment, on the second count 18 months, on the third count six months, on the fourth count 18 months, on the sixth count six months and they were all to run together, with the sentence on the fourth count of ten years. They were not taken as one.
MR BLOEM: Thank you. That is how I understand the position. He was sentenced effectively to ten years of imprisonment. That was what I was putting to him.
JUDGE WILSON: You did not. You put to him that they were taken as one, which would indicate it was all one combined offence. It wasn't, was it, if your read the judgment?
MR BLOEM: If I did put that to him then I must apologise. What I wanted to convey is effectively he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. So, Mr Johnson you are still serving a part of that ten years imprisonment.
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: Let us just go back to the question of how the Council operated at the time, we are talking about 1991, did you know how the Council which you were against at the time operated in 1991? Did you know how it worked?
MR JOHNSON: May I ask - because the question is not clear.
MR BLOEM: You were asked quite a number of questions about wanting Mrs Hanabe to resign as Mayoress at the time and yet you said that she was still continuing in Klipplaat, can you remember that?
MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember that.
MR BLOEM: What I want to know from you is do you know now as you are sitting there or maybe at the time in 1991 how the Council operated? In other words whether it was necessary for
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 89 MR JOHNSON
people to be physically at the ...(intervention)
MR JOHNSON: No I was not aware of how it operated.
MR BLOEM: Now let's just deal with - you gave evidence about a certain Mr Mpati who was assaulted in Klipplaat by members of AmaAfrica.
JUDGE MALL: Give that name again. Mr who?
MR BLOEM: The person's name was Mpati.
MR JOHNSON: Yes I did give evidence thereof.
MR BLOEM: Now we know that the offences were committed on the 14th of February 1991 now when in relation to the commission of the offences did the assault on Mr Mpati take place? Was it six months, a year before, was it a month before, a week before, the weekend before?
MR JOHNSON: He was assaulted before we eliminated Mrs Hanabe. Before the shooting incident of Mrs Hanabe he was assaulted.
MR BLOEM: What I want to know, in terms of time was it a year before the time, a month before, a weekend before the time,
before the shooting incident, the shooting of Mrs Hanabe? Can you remember?
MR JOHNSON: It was not two months thereafter. As I can see I think it was a month but it happened a month before Mrs Hanabe was shot.
MR BLOEM: Lastly I just want to clarify with you the question of who actually took the decision that Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated. Your evidence as I understood it was that there was a mass meeting in the community of Klipplaat and at that mass meeting a decision was taken that she be eliminated, is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: But stemming from that meeting a further meeting took place between the Executives of the ANC, Cosatu and the South EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 90 MR JOHNSON
African Communist Party.
JUDGE WILSON: The ANC Youth League I think.
MR BLOEM: Is that correct?
MR JOHNSON: Yes it is so.
MR BLOEM: Was it at that meeting that the decision was taken as to how she should be eliminated? Was it at that meeting that the decision was taken?
MR JOHNSON: Yes the decision was taken there, not at the mass meeting, but at the Executive meeting that was held thereafter.
MR BLOEM: You were present at that meeting when the decision was taken.
MR JOHNSON: Yes I was there.
MR BLOEM: Thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM
MS KHAMPEPE: I think in all fairness to the witness, if I remember, I recollect his evidence, it was to the effect that a decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken at the mass meeting and the decision to execute that decision, I mean, plans to execute that decision, were then arrived at, at the meeting of the ANC Youth League.
JUDGE WILSON: Ask him. What decision was taken at the mass meeting?
MR JOHNSON: The decision taken at the mass meeting was to eliminate Mrs Hanabe, but it was not said who and how. Then another meeting was set as to the decision, as to the method to be used. The decision was not taken at the mass meeting but at the Executive meeting ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: And what position did you hold at that
Executive meeting, what position did you hold on the executive?
MR JOHNSON: At that Executive meeting I was the Secretary of that meeting.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MS KHAMPEPE 91 MR JOHNSON
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you the Secretary of the ANC Youth League at the time?
MR JOHNSON: At that particular meeting I was the Secretary, I was the minute Secretary. The post that I was occupying in the ANC Youth League was being an organiser, not a Secretary.
JUDGE WILSON: And Jongi Lucas was he Chairperson of the ANC Youth League?
MR JOHNSON: Yes he was.
JUDGE WILSON: Mannetjie Blaau?
MR JOHNSON: In that particular meeting Mannetjie Blaau was an organiser. Jongi Lucas was the Chairperson at the meeting, I was the Secretary and Mannetjie Blaau was the organiser.
JUDGE WILSON: Leanda Makapela?
MR JOHNSON: She was the Vice-Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Simpiwe Saki?
MR JOHNSON: Comrade Simpiwe Saki was just an additional member.
JUDGE WILSON: You see, these are the people you said in your application who took the decision, gave the instructions. Do you remember that? The application you drew up.
MR JOHNSON: Yes I do remember Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: I can see no mention there of any SACP or
Cosatu representatives. There weren't any were there?
MR JOHNSON: Let me just clarify something. The people
that were working under the ANC, as Klipplaat is a small place, you could be an organiser for the ANC Youth League and simultaneously have a post within the SACP.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes and you have not put down one of them in your application. You application says the order was given by the ANC Klipplaat Executive and you do not mention in your application any member, any person as representing the SACP or Cosatu.
MR JOHNSON: These people who took this decision were also
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 92 MR JOHNSON
members of the Communist Party Executive. They simultaneously held different posts. This is why I have listed those people because they had posts within the ANC and the SACP simultaneously.
MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, can I just draw attention to and I think a member of the Committee read from paragraph 11(A) of the typed application, where the answer is,
"Yes, the order was given by the ANC Klipplaat Executive".
I think that is what the member read from. I want to go further and say that we also need to look at paragraph 10 of the
application which basically says "see annexure". And if we go to the annexure, the first paragraph will clarify the position. It reads:
"The charge of attempted murder arises out of the acts committed on the 14th of February 1991 on the instruction and command, and with the full knowledge and support of the ANC, Cosatu and the South African Communist Party, the tripartite alliance leadership."
So I am drawing attention to this to say that in his application he already said that it was a tripartite alliance leadership which took the decision.
JUDGE WILSON: We have not got a copy of Annexure A as part of the written application that was submitted. It is merely annexed onto the typewritten copy.
MR BLOEM: I must apologise. I was made to understand that what I and my friend here have, will be made available to you. I must apologise.
JUDGE WILSON: We have the typewritten ...(intervention)
MR BLOEM: No, no, no, I am talking about Annexure A to the typewritten copy.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, annexed to the typewritten.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 93 MR JOHNSON
MR BLOEM: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It was not part of the original handwritten one submitted.
MR BLOEM: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Which was prepared when?
MR BLOEM: I beg your pardon?
JUDGE WILSON: When was it prepared?
MR BLOEM: This was prepared this morning when I spoke
...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, so it's not part of the original application.
MR BLOEM: I understand it is not part of the ...
JUDGE WILSON: And I was questioning him about his original application which he made on the 17th of April 1996, and there he made no mention of these other groups.
MR BLOEM: I am sorry, I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. What happened this morning when I came here I understood that all you had was an application in handwriting. I then realised that I was sitting with a typed copy. I then made arrangements for my typed copy to be made available to yourselves.
JUDGE WILSON: And the original handwritten copy does not have an Annexure A on it, that we have.
MR BLOEM: And that is precisely why I made a copy of my typed copy together with the Annexure available to you.
JUDGE WILSON: And I asked you when was Annexure A made and you said, this morning. When did he write out Annexure A?
MR BLOEM: On the typed copy which was made available to you this morning you will see that there is a date stamp from the maximum prison Port Elizabeth, dated the 2nd of April 1996.
Now maybe I should just explain what happened here....
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON 94 MR JOHNSON
JUDGE MALL: Yes do carry on.
MR BLOEM: I do not think I can take this matter any further, Mr Chairperson. I .....
JUDGE MALL: Yes very well.
MR BRINK: I do not know whether I can be of assistance here. The original application that is the handwritten one appears to have come in on the 16th of January 1996. It was then sent back by the Cape Town office, presumably because it had not been signed by the Commissioner of Oaths or whatever and it was returned on the 15 May 1996.
The application which is in typed script is dated the 2nd April 1996 and Annexure A, that is the typewritten document attached to it, was compiled at that time, as I understand it, but was never received by the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town.
I think what my friend was trying to indicate was he had this, and I never had it and you did't have it, Mr Chairman and therefore copies were made for the convenience of the Committee. This in fact, the typed script, is an amplification of the handwritten one. That is how I understand the situation.
MR BLOEM: That is indeed. I could not have put it better than that.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are you calling any other witnesses?
MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, no, the applicant will be the only one who will testify in his own application. So there will be no further ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: So we do not know whether Cosatu were in favour of killing people? Whether the Communist Party was in favour of killing people?
MR BLOEM: There is a member of the ANC present. We have heard the name of Mannetjie Blaau He is here, but once again he is a member of the ANC and he is available to give evidence.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 95 MR JOHNSON
JUDGE MALL: No, we want to know. If the organisations' names are mentioned and as things read if one were to - it would indicate that organisations, such as the Communist Party and Cosatu... (tape ends)
MR BLOEM: I do appreciate the situation. May I ask for a short adjournment to re-assess my position, Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Whilst you are re-assessing your position you should be aware of the submission which has been made by the ANC with regards to the policy in 1991 with regard to such targets. Whether they were considered legitimate targets or not. Maybe you can take that into account as you reconsider your position.
MR BLOEM: Thank you very much for that. I will.
JUDGE MALL: We will adjourn for a short while.
MR BLOEM: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 96 MR BLAAU
ON RESUMPTION
MR BLOEM: I am indebted to you for granting me the opportunity to consult with the next witness who is Mannetjie Blaau.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR BLOEM: I wonder whether he should be sworn in.
JUDGE MALL: Will he speak in English?
MR BLOEM: I understand he prefers speaking in Xhosa.
MS KHAMPEPE: MrBlaau can you please tell us your full names?
MR BLAAU: I am Siswe Mannetjie Blaau.
SISWE MANNETJIE BLAAU: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau in 1991, is it correct to say that you were a member and you are still a member of the African National Congress?
MR BLAAU: Yes, that is correct.
MR BLOEM: What position did you hold with the ANC in 1991?
MR BLAAU: I was the Chairperson of the ANC.
MR BLOEM: Except for the ANC did you hold any position in any other political organisation?
MR BLAAU: I was only a leader of the ANC but the ANC was a leader of the alliance.
MR BLOEM: The alliance being the SACP and Cosatu?
MR BLAAU: The alliance was ANC, Cosatu, SACP and Sanco.
MR BLOEM: Were you a member of the SACP?
MR BLAAU: As a Chairperson of the ANC the constitution said that the Chairperson has a right and he has to be a member of the alliance.
MR BLOEM: Now there was evidence here earlier today by Mr Johnson, the applicant in this matter, that there was a mass meeting that was held on the 12 February 1991 to the effect that
Mrs Hanabe should be eliminated. Were you present at that meeting?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 97 MR BLAAU
MR BLAAU: This mass meeting, I was in that mass meeting, I was part of that meeting.
MR BLOEM: After the decision was taken another meeting stemming from ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Would it not be a little better if he gives his own evidence rather than you put the words into his mouth?
JUDGE MALL: About what the decision was. Let him first talk about that.
MR BLOEM: Can you please tell us what the decision was?
MR BLAAU: Firstly I want to make this point clear, as the Chairperson of the ANC the policy and the principles of the ANC said that no one has the right to kill, but a person has to protect himself from the enemy.
The case of Mrs Nomsa Hanabe, it was a bad case in Klipplaat. I have a picture of the circumstances as I am sitting here. What happened is that Mrs Hanabe was Mayoress in Klipplaat and there was a national call that the Councillors have to resign and as the ANC we had to have a programme of the resignation of the Councillors, whereby which we made attempts to try and convince these people that we are not fighting against them personally, but we are fighting against the policy of apartheid in which they were defending. We called them one by one in a meeting and we asked them to resign. We were trying to show them that we are not fighting against them personally but we were trying to fight against the policy. Some of them, five of them, responded positively, and they resigned.
Mrs Nomsa Hanabe was a stubborn person and she told us she will never resign. She has her own beliefs. It is when we went to the community to tell the people about the decisions taken from the meetings we had with the Councillors. We told the community that others have agreed to resign, but it was only
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 98 MR BLAAU
Nomsa Hanabe who refused.
It happened that the community decided that they did not want Mrs Nomsa Hanabe in Klipplaat. As we were still busy with that decision we heard rumours from our sources that there is a list which was provided by Mrs Nomsa Hanabe to the AmaAfrica to eliminate the leaders of the community.
It happened on that day. It was a Friday night and three taxi's came from Uitenhage. They were full of AmaAfrica. There was a Magutsa family where one girl Galane received a phone call, that we know that you are one of the people who want me to resign, to step down. I am coming together with my people.
As we were looking at this matter we heard that AmaAfrica arrived in this Magutsa family. They were fully armed as we were still looking at that matter, the community of Klipplaat this was new to them and this was strange to them, because in this community such a situation never prevailed.
The youth decided to go to that house to observe what was going on and we saw that some members of the AmaAfrica were outside and we tried to chase them away. We just heard people saying, shoot, shoot, and Mpati fell down. He was kicked as he was lying down and he was taken to the hospital. Victor Dose tried to protect him.
As the Chairperson of the ANC I went to the police to ask them if they were aware of the situation. When I arrived at the police there was only one police there, and we did not know what to do. We decided to go in hiding as the leadership. And the decision was taken and the people were still discussing how to try and chase out Mrs Hanabe in the community.
As we know in the past there were many ways we used in order to protect ourselves. There was a caucus held and it was concluded that this person is not willing to resign and we have EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 99 MR BLAAU
to see what we can do about her. And that is all.
The following day after this incident with the AmaAfrica the women in the community stood up and they marched to the police station, asking for this group to be removed from the community, and that happened. There was a man called Jantjie, he was the leader of this group, the AmaAfrica group. This man said they did not go there to fight but they were trying to organise their organisation. We told them this was not the first time such incident happened. There was a function at school and they were looking for the Secretary General of the ANC, Nqele in that function. They were driving a red car but unfortunately they did not find him.
MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau can I ask you are you aware of any decision that was taken and if so, please tell us under what circumstances that decision was taken to eliminate Mrs Hanabe?
MR BLAAU: The decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken in Klipplaat. It was well known that if you were not working together with the people, the people come together and they decide against you. The decision was that she must be chased away from the community. That was the decision that was taken at that meeting.
JUDGE WILSON: What does 'chased away' mean?
MR BLAAU: It means that as we know that at that time people such as Mrs Hanabe were causing problems in the community, we wanted peace and cooperation in our community, we wanted to take her out of Klipplaat.
JUDGE WILSON: Not kill her, you wanted her to move out of Klipplaat, is that what you are saying?
JUDGE MALL: Chased away?
JUDGE WILSON: Chased away from Klipplaat. Is that what you say?
MR BLAAU: That was one of the decisions. What we cannot get EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 100 MR BLAAU
away from, Mr Chairperson, is that we know that the ANC had street committees and they were responsible for what was happening in the community and they could see whether - if the person was causing a problem and they would act against that person.
MS KHAMPEPE: I think the question to come back to it again is whether you understand that decision that was taken at that meeting have meant that Mrs Hanabe should be chased away from Klipplaat to another community as long as it was away from Klipplaat. And you did not understand that decision to mean that she must be killed.
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, the situation was very difficult in the national organisation. We had difficulty in taking the decision that she must be killed. The community took a decision that they did not want her in that community. Because of the anger in our community it happened automatically that the comrades reacted in the way they reacted on that particular day.
MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau please, you said now that the community had a problem with the decision that she should be killed and then you went on. I think what the members of the Committee want to establish from you, was that decision that she should be chased away, could anyone of you who formed part of the decision making, anyone have understood that decision also to mean that she should be killed? I think that is what we want to ascertain from you.
MR BLAAU: I hear, I can understand you Sir. What happened is, as I have already said, we have street committees in the community and they were part of the youth and it was upon them to implement the decision taken. We are all activists and at that time as the situation was in the manner it was, we used to forget the ANC policy because we cannot run away from the fact that we were fighting against apartheid at that time.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 101 MR BLAAU
MR BLOEM: I am made to understand that the policy of the ANC was that Councillors should not be killed, is that also your understanding?
MR BLAAU: The ANC's policy as far as I understood it said we must not kill, but it also said that we have to protect ourselves against the enemy. At that time we were trained to protect ourselves against the enemy.
JUDGE MALL: Who was the enemy?
MR BLAAU: At the time, Mr Chairperson, we used to say that everything came due to the formation of the National Party Government. That was the enemy, the BLA, in the community they were considered as enemy because they sold people out, the Councillors sold people out, because at that time they did not consult with people, they did not act in favour of the needs of the people. They stopped water for the people and this clearly showed that they were enemies of the community.
MR BLOEM: Mr Blaau can I just have your comments on the following. The applicant testified that he went to Uitenhage with the intention of killing Mrs Hanabe because of a decision which was taken in Klipplaat to the effect that she should be eliminated. Are you aware of that decision?
MR BLAAU: I do understand your question, Mr Chairperson. As I have already said the decision was taken by the community that Mrs Hanabe was not seen as part of Klipplaat community or as one of the leaders of the people of Klipplaat. I do know about the decision that steps had to be taken against her.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know that her house had been burnt and that she had left Klipplaat and gone to live at Uitenhage?
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, the burning down of Mrs Hanabe's house, it was burnt down the same day that the ANC Youth League comrades were attacked. I also reported this to the police. EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 102 MR BLAAU
On that day no one could say that the house was burnt down by the supporters of the ANC, because up until today there is no clear evidence who actually burnt down that house.
JUDGE WILSON: Well the applicant has told us that it was burnt down by his comrades and that he knows the names of them.
JUDGE MALL: And that the houses of two other Councillors were burnt down.
JUDGE WILSON: Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that it was burnt down by members of the ANC? If so, I will ask the applicant to give us the names of the people, so you can identify them.
MR BLAAU: As I have already said, Mr Chairperson, I do understand the question, but what I am saying is this was a struggle between two opposing organisations and at that time it was very difficult to clearly say who burnt the house because it might happen that the AmaAfrica people were responsible for the burning of the house. If he knows the names of the comrades I am not aware of that, but people who were arrested were arrested for public violence. I never heard that they were arrested for burning down this house, because I was one of the people who were organising for lawyers for them at that time.
JUDGE WILSON: And you know about the other two Councillors' houses that were burnt down.
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, I only know an ANC member's house that was burnt. There was an old man named Mr Gele, his house was at the back of AmaAfrica. That day Mr Gele's house was burnt down and he was a member of the ANC. That was the second house. And we went there to try to put out the fire.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know about the other two Councillors' houses who were burnt? It's a simple question.
MR BLAAU: No, I only know about the Mayoress's house.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 103 MR BLAAU
JUDGE WILSON: And you say you were the Chairman of the ANC and endeavouring to persuade the Councillors to resign, but you do not know that two of their houses were burnt. Is that the position?
MR BLAAU: Yes that is the position. I was a Chairperson of the ANC and I only know of one house, the Mayoress's house.
JUDGE WILSON: For how long were you a Chairperson of the ANC, before 1991 and after 1991?
MR BLAAU: As we all know the ANC was unbanned in 1991. At that time it was then that we became leaders of the ANC. Before I was a member of the Residents' Association, named Wora. I was active in that organisation and the discussions concerning the Councillors' resignation started in 1991, in 1989 and I was elected last year to lead the ANC again.
JUDGE MALL: Last year? When were you elected for the first time?
MR BLAAU: It was in 1991 as I have already said.
JUDGE WILSON: Was is by February of 1991?
MR BLAAU: We all know that the ANC was unbanned in February when Nelson Mandela was released and since then we were all organising, from January, because we knew that the ANC will be unbanned. We prepared ourselves but the elections took place in February.
JUDGE WILSON: And the applicant must have known that, that you were the Chairperson?
MR BLAAU: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: What about Jongi Lucas?
MR BLAAU: Jongi was an ex-official member of the ANC. The Youth League member becomes an ex-member of the ANC.
MR BLAAU: You were the Chairperson of the ANC's local branch of Klipplaat and not of the ANC Youth League.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 104 MR BLAAU
MR BLAAU: I was the Chairperson of the ANC local branch.
JUDGE WILSON: And did you have anything to do with the Youth League?
MR BLAAU: What happened is as the ANC has different structures the ANC Youth League, the Chairperson becomes involved in the meetings of the branch and Women's League. It is where they report about the progress of the organisation. They have their own autonomy.
JUDGE WILSON: But you see the applicant just told us that you were an organiser and were one of the people who took the decision that the deceased, the woman in this case be eliminated. Do you remember doing that?
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson as I have already said the decision was taken in that meeting and I was part of that meeting.
JUDGE WILSON: This was a small meeting of about five people, not a mass meeting. You have not told us about taking part in a small meeting, coming to this decision. You now agree you were at a small meeting where the decision was taken by five of you, that she should be eliminated.
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson I can say that is correct, because what happened is the decision that people would see what to do in this situation. As I have already said the organisation we have different people. You find people who believe in the struggle, such as Ghandi's struggle, some were radicals within the organisation and some believed in peace. And it happened that the comrades took the decision and they decided to do whatever was necessary.
JUDGE WILSON: Why do you keep trying to avoid telling us that you were one of those comrades who took that decision? You keep saying other people, or the comrades. Were you one of the people who took that decision that this woman must be eliminated?
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON 105 MR BLAAU
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, I am not running away from anything. I was one of the people who wanted the truth to come out. What I am saying is I was part of the meeting where the decision was taken that we will see what to do to get rid of Mrs Hanabe. The comrades decided what to do. After the... (tape ends)
JUDGE MALL: ... was taken, were you one of them to eliminate her, to kill her, that you were a party to that decision, is that correct? That she should be killed? Not that something should be done about her. I am talking about that she should be killed.
MR BLAAU: I did not say she has to be eliminated, but what I
said is that something has to be done. The comrades will see what to do.
JUDGE MALL: So what you are saying is that you were not a part of a group that took a decision that she should be killed. Is that what you are saying now, is that correct?
MR BLAAU: Mr Chairperson, if I would admit to this it will take a long time because as I have already said if you were involved in the structures you would see what happened. The decision was taken by the community and outside there was a caucus whereby we discussed what will be done, but we never said she must be killed. What we said is that comrades you will see what to do about her.
JUDGE WILSON: You see we've been told that Klipplaat's youth, the Youth League Executive, not only decided she must be killed, but decided which three people should do so and that you were a member of that Executive, that you were there when this decision was taken. Do you agree with that or not?
MR BLAAU: As I have said Sir, it is so, however it was not from my lips that she should be killed. It is a vote from the comrades. Today we are not ashamed to accept that it is a member EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON 106 MR BLAAU
of the ANC that almost killed this woman. There is nothing we are hiding and so forth.
JUDGE WILSON: So you accept that you were at the meeting where the decision was taken that she should be killed and where you nominated three people, Jongi Lucas, Sipiwe Saki and the applicant to go and do it. You are now saying that you were at that meeting and that you were one of those who took a decision. Is that what you are telling us?
MR BLAAU: I do not know anything about the three people that were nominated. I know there was a meeting that I was at. We did not make a concrete decision that she should be killed. It was the individual people that decided from the anger from within to kill this woman.
MR BLOEM: I certainly do not have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLOEM
MS KHAMPEPE: Why was there a meeting convened amongst the five of you, that is yourself, Jongi Lucas, Nsikelelo Johnson, Julian Makapele, Sipiwe Saki? Why was there a meeting convened? What were you to discuss at that meeting?
MR BLAAU: As I have said previously, the Committee's conclusion was that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe. We then had to decide what exactly, what to do about Mrs Hanabe. This is when we realised that the comrades that thought they were up to do something about it would have done it, had they wanted to.
MS KHAMPEPE: I do not understand whether the interpretation is correct because you response does not make any sense. Did you decide at that meeting on the manner in which you were to eliminate Mrs Hanabe? Was that what you decided at that meeting?
MR BLAAU: We reached a point where we realised that something must be done about Mrs Hanabe. We then decided to campaign to EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
JUDGE WILSON 107 MR BLAAU
illustrate to people that what Mrs Hanabe was doing was not proper. I do not know anything about the conclusion that she must be killed.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you are saying that the applicant is incorrect in including you in a meeting which was held on the 12th of February where a decision to eliminate Mrs Hanabe was taken and where a decision was taken on how she was to be eliminated. Are you saying he is mistaken?
MR BLAAU: I do not know anything about the meeting. I am not saying that he is mistaken.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Brink are there any questions that you wish to ask?
MR BRINK: No thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BLOEM
MR BLOEM: That is the case for the applicant.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, the witness can be excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 108 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: We have to consider others who were involved in these proceedings. I say that to you because I want to know whether it is convenient to you to hear your argument at this stage or to hear it early in the morning.
MR BRINK: I understand my friend will not be here tomorrow morning. He is otherwise engaged, but ...
JUDGE MALL: Are you prepared to address now?
MR BLOEM: I certainly am. May I just mention that I am not going to be long. My friend has also indicated that he is not going to be long, so I think we will be out here sooner than we thought we would.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please proceed.
MR BLOEM ADDRESSES: Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, it is my submission that despite the performance of Mr Blaau in this matter that the applicant should be granted amnesty.
It is my submission, to start off with, that he made full disclosure of all relevant facts to this Committee. It is my submission that it cannot be said that he was not open with this tribunal. He said everything which he could and he played open cards with this Committee. I therefore submit that he has made full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
As to whether or not the act - or rather I will refer to an act, the act of the attempted killing. He was also charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition, but I am not dealing - I will refer to the act as referring to the attempted murder. As to whether or not that act was associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past, Mr Blaau has given this Committee a background of what happened not only in our country at the time but specifically what
happened at Klipplaat and the same was said by the applicant, except for the question of the burning of the houses of the
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 109 ADDRESS
Councillors. Whether or not, we are dealing with the objective,
whether or not the applicant was aware of the policy of the ANC which organisation the aims of which he was trying to promote at the time, that I submit is not what is relevant at the time. What is relevant is what was his bona fide belief at the time when he fired the shots at this woman and the events which occurred before that, in other words a decision was taken and that decision, it is my submission, cannot be said was for personal gain.
JUDGE WILSON: What about the proportionality of that decision? Here he wished to bring about an end to the local authority. You have done so. You have caused all the Councillors to resign and you caused this woman to leave the area, can you possibly argue that you were then justified in murdering her, because she won't resign as a Councillor?
MR BLOEM: I think, with respect, we must look at the prevailing circumstances at the time and what drove the applicant to committing this act he said he is sorry for. I think, with respect, we will be making a mistake by looking at things in retrospect as if the circumstances at the time are they as ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: I am not doing that. I am saying looking at the circumstances at the time, they wanted to bring about the end of the local authority. They had achieved it. All the Councillors had resigned save this one woman. She had left town. And out of pure stubbornness, because she would not resign, that is all, she was not doing anything, they decide to kill her.
MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman, you will remember ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: What did they have to achieve by killing her, tell me?
MR BLOEM: You will remember that the evidence was that albeit EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 110 ADDRESS
she was now in Uitenhage she was still coming through to Klipplaat ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: And doing nothing. There was not a suggestion that she did a single act as Mayoress, is there?
MR BLOEM: Well the evidence from - and this was asked by me when I re-examined, was whether he knew what was going on, at the time what was going on, how the Council operated at the time. And he did not know how.
JUDGE WILSON: But he decided to kill. Thank you.
MR BLOEM: Well that was the evidence. He decided to kill her.
JUDGE WILSON: When on his own evidence he didn't know what was happening.
MR BLOEM: And my submission is that one needs to look at why a person would go to the extreme of wanting to kill another person and you can only do that by looking at the circumstances at the time. And he said that it - I now when I look back I am sorry for what I have done, but at the time I thought, I thought at the time that that was the correct decision not for myself, but for the community in which I lived. And that, I would submit is a bona fide, albeit that now we realise it was a mistake on his part but at the time he was convinced that that was the right decision, given the circumstances at the time.
JUDGE WILSON: You are having regard to the findings of the court who convicted him about his hatred for her.
MR BLOEM: That Mr Chairman, is his evidence but that certainly is not his evidence that he killed her because he hated her. He hated what she was doing but it was not against her person per se. It was her deeds in the community, how she was cutting off water, what she was doing, to bringing in a vigilante group, that is what he was against, not the person, Mrs Hanabe, herself. It was not about that. It was what she was doing and what her role EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 111 ADDRESS
in the community was at the time. That was his complaint as far as ...(intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: At the time of her elimination is there evidence that she was still cutting off water and sanitation services to the local community, all by herself?
MR BLOEM: If the evidence is not clear in that regard I would submit that the evidence should be seen in the light, that the decision to kill was taken as a result of her conduct, and the conduct complained of, one of the acts she is accused of, was cutting off the water supply to the community ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: And you have driven her out of office, as a result. You have driven the Council out of office, because of that. You will recollect Mr Blaau said it was the Councillors who cut off the water. They all have been driven out of office. They cannot do a thing any more. Can you still say that you could have regard to that as a justification for killing?
MR BLOEM: As I understand the evidence, firstly we all know that the intention was to kill, but certainly she was not killed.
JUDGE WILSON: The intention, you are trying to justify that intention, by saying oh, she cut the water off.
MR BLOEM: The evidence was that - the evidence certainly from the applicant was that she refused and he is corroborated by Mr Blaau in that respect, that Mr Blaau goes to the extent of
saying that they went to these Councillors individually and they spoke to them and they resigned, but the one and only person who refused to resign was Mrs Hanabe and the retaliation was, of her, was to cut off the water ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: That is nonsense and you know it. There is no such evidence to suggest that that was done after the resignation.
MR BLOEM: Mr Chairman please, I led the witness and my
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 112 ADDRESS
recollection of that was, when I led him in this regard was, my understanding of his evidence was that the retaliation, the word retaliation was used, and the retaliation from Mrs Hanabe, when she was asked to leave the community, she refused to and she retaliated. That was his evidence when I led him and she retaliated by cutting off the water ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: When she realised most of the community was against her she retaliated by cutting off people's water. As the community was trying to make her resign we decided she should be eliminated.
MR BLOEM: I with respect, can I just be allowed to deal with this point, because I was accused of making a submission that was absolutely nonsense and I believe that I have the right to respond to that. And I am saying that that is not so because I led the witness on that aspect and my recollection, the member of the Committee might be reading from something else, but I am talking, and my submission was made in the context of his evidence led here today, and his evidence was that as a result of the request for her to step down, she retaliated by cutting off the water.
That is how I understand the evidence. And that is the submission I make. I do not make the submission based on what was read now by a member of this Committee. I am prepared to deal with that if it is asked.
JUDGE MALL: Well, carry on with the ...(intervention)
MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: And do we ignore Mr Blaau's evidence when he said the Councillors stopped the water for the people and clearly showed they were the enemies of the people?
MR BLOEM: I can only reply by saying that he was talking about Councillors and to be a Mayor or Mayoress you need to be a
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 113 ADDRESS
Councillor and I think Mrs Hanabe - his evidence should be read in that context.
JUDGE WILSON: He was talking about Councillors as a whole. At that time he said everything came from the Nationalist Government, the Councillors were regarded as enemies, they sold the people out, they did not consult with them. They stopped water for the people.
MR BLOEM: I cannot take the point further, Mr Chairman by saying Mrs Hanabe obviously was one of the Councillors. So when Mr Blaau gave evidence about Councillors, he obviously must have included Mrs Hanabe. I cannot take that matter any further.
JUDGE MALL: Very well. Make your next point.
MR BLOEM: Just about the political objective. I know I was asked about the question of how proportional the intention to kill was in relation to the circumstances in Klipplaat at the time, but I want to make the submission that a decision was taken and the decision was not taken by the applicant alone, the decision was taken by a number of people. We know from his evidence, although Mr Blaau, and I am prepared to concede that
that Mr Blaau was very vague about that, we know that from the applicant's evidence there were five people who took the decision that she should - there was a general meeting .....
JUDGE WILSON: I do not think Mr Blaau was vague about that one. It was a fairly categoric denial, was it not?
JUDGE MALL: I think it was a denial but it was extracted out of him painfully.
MR BLOEM: That is what I mean. Thank you very much.
Now the applicant he believes that he was, and this is what he said, because a decision was taken in Klipplaat by that Committee of five people he then went with the other two people and he committed the act.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 115 ADDRESS
Now my submission is that it was basically an order given to him by that Committee in Klipplaat, whilst the applicant was a member, an Executive member of the ANC and aalso a member of the South African Communist Party.
JUDGE MALL: I do not think you can go very much further with that kind of argument, acting under authority. This is hardly a case where these people were his superiors and he had to carry out an order by his superiors on pain of some punishment. He was one amongst five equals. Do you understand? He was as excited or keen about it as any of them were. So I think to say he acted on the orders of a group of five is pushing it too far.
MR BLOEM: I readily must concede. Not 'order' what was meant, was a collective decision was taken. I am terribly sorry about the use of the word 'order', but it was a collective decision which was taken. And he formed part of that decision and we need to look at the acts which were committed in the light of the history of that decision. And that history is that it was
a collective decision, based on the circumstances in Klipplaat at the time.
Therefore, Mr Chairman, my submission is that the act was committed by the applicant because he bona fide believed that he was furthering the political struggle of the people in Klipplaat at the time.
MS KHAMPEPE: What was that struggle, Mr Bloem, to topple the local Council's structure, which they have successfully done by having almost many of them resigning from that structure?
JUDGE MALL: Either resigning or being converted to their view.
MS KHAMPEPE: And being integrated into their own community.
MR BLOEM: The word used by you, member of the Committee, is that 'almost' all of the members were either converted or driven out or were convinced to step down as Councillors, except for EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 116 ADDRESS
one. And that person was Mrs Hanabe, who on the evidence before you refused, in fact the applicant goes to the extent of saying, albeit that she was now residing in Uitenhage she was still coming to Klipplaat. And it is in context of that. Whatever she was doing she still was, the word 'threat' would be strong under the circumstances, but something very close to a threat, because she was still a Councillor at the time.
JUDGE MALL: I think isn't the reality that they were called in one by one and the community was told, all of them have agreed, she just refuses and to sum it all up, it is her refusal to step down, is the be all and the end all of the case against her. Plain and simple, she refuses to step down. Something must be done to eliminate her and the attempted killing is there for no other reason but to achieve one objective and that was to
satisfy themselves that they have done something because she refused to step down. Isn't that basically the whole case?
MR BLOEM: Can I just reply and say I agree because that is the evidence of the applicant. His evidence was to the effect that we wanted to kill her because she did not want to resign and the terrible deeds committed by her, but Sir, I must stress it was not to satisfy the applicant himself. The applicant bona fide believed that at the time when he was committing this offence he was not doing it out of personal greed or becuase he wanted to get at Mrs Hanabe, it was done in a certain context and the context which I am talking about is that he thought that he was acting in the best interest of the community from which he came. That is the context within which I submit, he committed this offence.
JUDGE MALL: I understand.
MR BLOEM: Can I just have one second.
JUDGE MALL: Certainly.
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
MR BLOEM 117 ADDRESS
MR BLOEM: That I have no further submissions.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Brink is there anything you wish to say?
MR BRINK ADDRESSES: Very, very briefly Mr Chairman.
I think you will anticipate the submissions I make in regard to problems the applicant has in relation to ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Well, you need not repeat them.
MR BRINK: No, I do not intend to, I say you can anticipate those. But I suppose in fairness to him it might well be argued that having regard to the history and the problems that happened in this country in the so-called black townships, black local authorities imposed from above, it was all over the country, the resentment and therefore the burnings, and the killings and the assaults and so on of those who were acting as what were regarded as puppets of the Government, one knows that that happened. It's a question of proportionality it seems to me is a real problem here.
JUDGE MALL: It is.
MR BRINK: But you see, although Mrs Hanabe was, to coin a word, 'an impotent' Mayor, not Mayoress, she was Mayor in fact, had no powers, she was still regarded by these people as an undesirable symbol of oppression and I suppose it might be argued on his behalf, get rid of that symbol and they were at peace.
JUDGE WILSON: It was argued but they had driven that symbol out of Klipplaat. She came back because she was working there. She was still Deputy Headmistress of the school, wasn't she?
MR BRINK: It is clear, I mean I hold no brief, I don't make a submission on his behalf, but I think in fairness, that is something that does possibly count in his favour.
Those are my submissions.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Bloem, thank you very much for
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE
118
rendering such assistance as you were able to render to the applicant.
MR BLOEM: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will reserve its decision and will make it known in due course.
MR BLOEM: As it pleases you.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will adjourn and Mr Brink, what is the earliest - can we resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning?
MR BRINK: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: Have you satisfied yourself that the Attorney who is appearing for the applicants in that matter knows?
MR BRINK: No. I do not know whether there is representation of Mr Makrosi. Arrangements were set in foot about that when the Form 2's were sent to these people. As soon as we knew the venue, we knew the venue was on the 23rd or 24th of February and notices were sent out on the 25th, through the Investigative Unit with the legal aid application form. Whether Mr Machaka has resolved that with his people I am unaware, but I will be talking to Mrs Burts about this this evening as well.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Brink I am sure the Regional Office might be able to come to our assistance in that regard.
MR BRINK: I sincerely hope so.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. I don't want to go around saying that we will resume at nine o' clock tomorrow morning and find that we are delayed and that you have -
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
EAST LONDON HEARING AMNESTY/E CAPE