JUDGE WILSON: ... finally arrived. I would have liked to have apologised to the members of the public and others who are here for the hearing, which was supposed to start at

9 a.m. I am told, for the fact that we are considerably later than that and explain that there were problems in that the applicant is in prison at the moment, and he was brought here but there was some difficulty in finding where he was being detained in this building, as it is not a building normally used for these purposes and that consequently delayed council's chance of interviewing his client and that is what has delayed the commencement of proceedings.

Before we start on today's matter, there is one further matter I would like to raise with Mr Black and that is the case set down for Thursday, no it is set down for Friday, the last day which was an offence allegedly committed on the day of the election and we would like Mr Black to confirm that the Act has been properly amended to extend the date to - that cut off date has properly been extended to that date, but there is nothing you have to do now. If you could in the interim period check on that.

MR BLACK: I shall do so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Right, what are we starting with today?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, we will commence with the case of Mr Vernon Vosloo, it is case number 1003/96. It is in fact the only matter that will be heard today.

Mr Vosloo is legally represented. He is represented by Adv Malan, instructed by Mr Nel of the firm of attorneys

M.S. van Niekerk of Pretoria.

Mr Chairman, at the outset, if I may just mention that in this particular instance, the deceased was never identified and throughout the trial of Mr Vosloo, the identity of the deceased remained unknown. As a consequence, next of kin and victims, we were unable to trace any of them.

My learned friend Mr Nel and I have both made extensive efforts, research and numerous efforts in order to obtain a copy of the judgement and the court proceedings, which took place when Mr Vosloo was tried for murder. A letter dated 4 of April was handed to me by Mr Nel which I have requested, being given to the Chairman and the learned members of the panel which sets out the various efforts that have been made.

It would appear that it is not possible to obtain a copy of the court record, it seems to have been drawn in October some time ago, last year, and it has not been returned to the archives.

So the only documentation which we, on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have in our possession, are the documents which are now before the panel and I am given to understand by Mr Malan, that he has no intention of handing additional documentation.

I submit therefor that the matter is ready to be heard.

JUDGE WILSON: We have had an opportunity of reading the letter of the 4th of April 1997, addressed to the Committee and would like to thank Mr Nel or the other members of the firm who made all the efforts they did to attempt to obtain the missing information.

It appears from the letter that they personally visited

a number of places to try to get this information, and we are extremely grateful to them for it. One matter that does cause me distress, is the fact that a file can be removed and thereafter disappear and I request that the relevant authorities continue to make enquiries as to how this file, and why this file, was removed by the woman named in the letter, on the 14th of October 1996 and to obtain a statement from her as to what she did with the file.

And to investigate as to whether there was any ulterior motive in what she did because there have been other cases which we have been concerned with, where dockets and files have also disappeared, and I feel the time has come where the matter must be fully investigated and I request that that be done.

Not by the firm of attorneys concerned, but by the relevant authorities, thank you. You may proceed.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, the applicant has been convicted of a crime of murder in September 1993. Allegedly committed on the 10th of May 1992, near Suidheuwels in the District of Johannesburg.

The applicant is present and wish to proceed with his application.

ADV DE JAGER: Verkies U om getuienis in Afrikaans te gee? Please stand.

VERNON VOSLOO: (sworn states)

MR BLACK: Should he stay seated Mr Chairman, I just want to enquire, may he stay seated whilst giving evidence? Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY ADV MALAN: Mr Vosloo, what is your age currently?

INTERPRETER: The applicant is not using the microphone.

ADV DE JAGER: Also draw the microphone slightly closer to yourself.

ADV MALAN: You are currently in the Pretoria Central prison, where you have a prison sentence of 15 years, you were found guilty on murder.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Malan, they are interpreting at the same time while you are talking, if you could give them some opportunity otherwise we will overlap.

ADV MALAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you remember the date in September on which you were found guilty and ...

MR VOSLOO: It was the 8th of September.

ADV MALAN: That is approximately three and a half years ago, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: That is correct.

ADV MALAN: Could you indicate to the Committee where you grew up, in what part of Johannesburg you grew up?

MR VOSLOO: I grew up in the south of Johannesburg. The majority of the people in that area are conservative people.

ADV MALAN: What do you mean by the term "conservative"?

MR VOSLOO: We all know what conservative is, these are people who believe in their own thing - their political motives and that kind of thing.

ADV MALAN: While you grew up, how did you experience the Black people in this country?

MR VOSLOO: As long as Black people did not come into conflict with me, and as long as their ways and goals were not enforced on me, I did not have any problems with that, but I did not want any interference with myself from them.

ADV MALAN: Before the incident for which you were found guilty, did you have any other problems with people of other colours in the population? Did you come in conflict with

them in any way?

MR VOSLOO: While we grew up, there were always Black people around and from time to time one would meet people along the road, and there would be some conflict.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Malan, just a moment, if I look at the journalists, it would appear as if everyone is having difficulty with the hearing apparatus.

Possibly you could draw it somewhat closer to yourself, the microphone that is. My hearing aid is humming and I can hardly hear.

ADV MALAN: Okay, just use this microphone so that everyone can hear. Okay Mr Chairman, is this better? Is it now better? Thank you Mr Chairman. Okay, Mr Vosloo, how did you then experience the people in the area where you lived and moved around there, were you in conflict with them or not?

MR VOSLOO: As I said, from time to time, we were in conflict.

ADV MALAN: So you showed enmity towards them, do I understand you correctly or not?

MR VOSLOO: There was enmity in the sense that I didn't want them to be in control of my life.

ADV MALAN: How did you regard this matter of being in control of your life, when would that be the case?

MR VOSLOO: Well, in a case like now, they were governing and in control, they would be in control of the whole country.

ADV MALAN: Were you then prepared to do anything in order to avoid this so that they take over control of the country, the government as you refer to it now?

MR VOSLOO: I wanted to do something and in due course I

did. And the situation arose and I went and a man regarded by me as a threat to me, I killed.

ADV MALAN: What was your involvement before this incident, in political organisations in this country?

MR VOSLOO: I was not a registered member of any organisation, although I was a strong supporter of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the AWB. I felt that they were basically moving in the correct direction and I associated with this trend.

ADV MALAN: Did you participate in their movements, meetings, etc?

MR VOSLOO: I watched their meetings and that type of thing and I was watching what the people did and thought about them.

ADV MALAN: And according to your understanding, what did they say should happen to counteract the political events? What was the general feeling?

MR VOSLOO: The general feeling amongst the people was to resist a take over.

ADV MALAN: You were not an official as such or an enrolled member of one of these movements, were you?

MR VOSLOO: No, I wasn't.

ADV MALAN: Did you regard the Black population as a whole as a threat or just members of a political organisation like the ANC?

MR VOSLOO: I regarded Black people in general as an opposition party in the country.

ADV MALAN: If we could then continue with the incident of 10 May 1992, regarding which you will be speaking to the Committee here today. Could you please tell the Committee what happened there on that particular day?

MR VOSLOO: We were standing next to the road, having a few drinks.

ADV MALAN: You are referring to the plural "us", were there other people with you there?

MR VOSLOO: I wasn't alone, there were people with me, a few friends.

ADV MALAN: Okay, continue. You say you were standing next to the road, what time of the day was this?

MR VOSLOO: It was in the evening, probably about ten o'clock.

ADV MALAN: What were you drinking?

MR VOSLOO: Strong liquor and also lighter alcoholic beverages, like beer.

ADV MALAN: What was your state of intoxication at that stage?

MR VOSLOO: It is difficult to say exactly, but I was reasonably drunk at the time.

ADV MALAN: Was it close to a shopping centre of just in a residential area or where was it?

MR VOSLOO: It was in a residential area, in front of a shopping complex.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps give us the detail where, which residential area, which shopping centre so that we know exactly what you are talking about.

MR VOSLOO: It was just a cafe with a video shop next to it and the Black man passed there. I went to my car, I took out a knife, I followed him and about 30, 40 metres further on from that point, I grabbed this man from behind and I stabbed him to death.

ADV MALAN: The Honourable Member of the Committee asked you which shopping centre it was and which residential area?

MR VOSLOO; Sorry yes, it was in the South Hills suburb of Johannesburg, in the south.

ADV MALAN: And the shopping centre didn't have a specific shopping centre name?

MR VOSLOO: No, it was just a little cafe there.

ADV MALAN: The deceased concerned, I will refer to him as the deceased, did you know him from before the incident?

MR VOSLOO: No, I didn't know him.

ADV MALAN: So it was the first time that you saw him?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, it was.

ADV MALAN: Did he do anything or was he wearing any clothing that provoked you? What gave rise to your particular actions on that evening?

MR VOSLOO: He didn't to anything to me, he walked passed. He walked passed and I saw him as the person who could possibly govern me some day.

ADV MALAN: Just to put it in this perspective then, why did you do it, why did you act on that particular evening in that manner?

MR VOSLOO: At the time of the deed, the political climate was of such a nature that I was afraid that at the end of the day, I would not have a say in anything. And the man who was walking passed there was to me part of that which I was afraid of.

ADV MALAN: The people who were there with you, did they assist you in any way in your actions?

MR VOSLOO: The people there with me did nothing, they just stood there.

ADV MALAN: They also didn't edge you on, do I understand you correctly?

MR VOSLOO: No, they didn't.

ADV MALAN: Okay. The knife which you fetched from your vehicle, why was the knife in the vehicle, what was the

purpose of carrying it in the vehicle?

MR VOSLOO: The knife was always in the vehicle for braai purposes. I didn't braai all that often, the knife was there for use when I required it.

ADV MALAN: How far away were you from the vehicle?

MR VOSLOO: We were standing next to the vehicle.

ADV MALAN: Where specifically in the vehicle, was the knife?

MR VOSLOO: In the back, in the boot.

ADV MALAN: When you took out the knife, where was the deceased - the approximate distance away from you?

MR VOSLOO: He was probably about 20 metres away from me.

ADV MALAN: Did he walk passed you closer and was he then on his way away from you?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, he was walking passed on the opposite side of the street.

ADV MALAN: In which manner did you follow him, did you run, jog, walk?

MR VOSLOO: I walked quite fast, just short of jogging to follow him.

ADV MALAN: Did the deceased ever see you coming?

MR VOSLOO: I doubt it, I don't think so because I was approaching from behind.

ADV MALAN: Can you please inform the Committee what happened when you reached the deceased?

MR VOSLOO: I got to him, I grabbed him from behind and from that position I stabbed him from the front in his chest, any way I could reach.

ADV MALAN: Do you know how many stab wounds you

inflicted on him?

MR VOSLOO: From the post mortem I read that I had

stabbed him 14 times.

ADV MALAN: Where were these stab wounds?

MR VOSLOO: It was all over his body, in his chest, wherever there was place to stab him.

ADV MALAN: Did the deceased resist in any manner against your attack?

MR VOSLOO: No.

ADV MALAN: And after your stabbing him, what happened to the deceased?

MR VOSLOO: The deceased dropped to the ground and remained laying there.

ADV MALAN: He probably died there, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: Yes.

ADV MALAN: When he was laying on the ground, what did you do then?

MR VOSLOO: I moved back to my car and I drove off.

ADV MALAN: During the trial where you were found guilty, did your friends testify against you, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV MALAN: If you were to judge your actions on that particular day, did anybody contribute towards your activities, edging you on, in the broader spectrum of things, not just your friends? In the light of political speeches of the time, etc?

MR VOSLOO: The then climate on the eve of the take over was of such a nature that the Afrikaner felt threatened to do something not to be taken over without resisting in any way.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you call this resisting?

MR VOSLOO: At the time of the crime I did think it was the correct action.

ADV MALAN: If you were to look back today to the incident, how do you feel about it?

MR VOSLOO: I don't believe that I have the vocabulary to say how sorry I am about what I did. I took the life of an innocent person and it is something which no rational person will do.

ADV MALAN: Do you still think that you achieved anything by your activity, that you could do anything?

MR VOSLOO: At this stage no, because the take over is over and things at this stage are not as bad as we had thought at the time, they would be.

ADV MALAN: Was there any other reason for your action against the deceased except for this political motive of yours?

MR VOSLOO: No, definitely not.

ADV MALAN: What was the influence of your alcohol consumption on the particular incident that took place?

MR VOSLOO: The alcohol made me act irrationally. And that which was passing through my mind at that stage incited by the alcohol, made me do this.

ADV MALAN: If you were sober on that particular evening, would you have acted in that particular way?

MR VOSLOO: No, I doubt it because any rational person would certainly have found other ways of resisting.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Vosloo, if that was the position as you have testified now, then according to your own version you are saying that the alcohol which you've consumed, was the cause of the deed you committed and not any political motive which you wish to achieve.

MR VOSLOO: Sir, that is perhaps a wrong way to put it. The liquor perhaps gave me the false courage to act in accordance with that which I felt so strongly.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Vosloo, what did you hope to achieve by killing a person who was walking passed you and what political objective did you have in mind and what were you hoping to achieve politically?

MR VOSLOO: I didn't just want to sit still and allow myself to be taken over and ruled by an opposition party.

MS KHAMPEPE: So by killing a person, this particular person, who was walking past where you and your friends were drinking, you were hoping to resist the take over, is that what you want to convey to us?

MR VOSLOO: The general talking that was going on at that stage, was that everybody felt that manner and in that way and I felt that I had to do my little bit and that I wouldn't be taken over without any resistance.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you seriously suggesting that everybody felt that they must kill any Black person they saw?

MR VOSLOO: If that was your conviction and you found yourself in that position that you had to resist in some way or another, then you will act in the manner that you thought fit and at that stage I thought that was what I had to do.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Vosloo, were you ...

ADV MALAN: Excuse me, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I would just like the Committee to confirm that the applicant fully understands the English language. He has been told about the facilities, translation facility, if he is comfortable.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Vosloo, would you like to use your headphones for ease of translation to Afrikaans, the language which I am sure you will feel more comfortable

with.

JUDGE WILSON: Has his earphones ... (tape ends)

ADV MALAN: I am told that the adjustments had been made.

MS KHAMPEPE: To just make a follow up to a short question which I wanted to put to you Mr Vosloo, were you aware at the time of the commission of this offence, that negotiations were taking place at Kempton Park during the Nationalist Party led government and other role players, which included various political organisations and liberation movements, were you aware of those negotiations taking place?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, I was aware of those.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, I would presume that the take over that you were so scared of and that you wanted to resist, was as a result of the negotiations which was taking place at Kempton Park. Would I be correct in my assumption?

MR VOSLOO: Excuse me, could you just repeat?

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you scared of the take over from the Nationalist Party led government by the Black people which you regarded as a threat because of the negotiations that were taking place at Kempton Park?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, I was afraid of that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, in that context then Mr Vosloo, did you not regard the Nationalist Party as a threat because they had initiated those negotiations?

MR VOSLOO: Perhaps to a certain extent, yes, because by doing so they would have me ruled by a party of a different colour.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you therefore regarded the Nationalist Party as having sold out on the ideals of the Afrikaner people and they therefore were the correct political target

for you to have directed any of your attempts at resisting such a take over. Why did you not launch any attack against the establishment or anything that would have been associated with the Nationalist Party and why did you decide on an innocent person whom you knew very little of?

MR VOSLOO: At the time of the crime, I did not really regard the National Party as my opposition. That which I regarded as my opposition, what I saw was that Black people would be governing the country, and that was what I was afraid of.

MS KHAMPEPE: You can continue sir. I am sorry to have interrupted you.

ADV MALAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vosloo, if it had been a White person who walked passed you on that evening, would you have acted in the same way or not?

MR VOSLOO: If a White man walked passed me, he would just have walked passed. I did not see the White man as a threat.

ADV MALAN: Did you consider this threat only to come from Black people or all the people in the country other than White people?

MR VOSLOO: The vast majority who wanted to take over the country, were Black. Therefore, in general I saw the threat at being Black people, as well as at the same time, other people of other colours. There are coloured people who might look Black, but generally other race groups presumably than White, I would have seen as my opposition.

ADV MALAN: You have completed an application for amnesty and you have a copy of this application, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: That is correct.

ADV MALAN: You would stand by the submissions or the

statements made in the application, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: That is correct.

ADV MALAN: You also refer to it that you consider yourself to be a supporter of the AWB, the Afrikaner Resistance Movement or Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: That is correct.

ADV MALAN: Can you remember what the threats of the AWB had been at that time? What would they have done if there was a take over or if the negotiations continued?

MR VOSLOO: The talk was that people had to take up arms. That is the single message that remained in my mind, that people had to take up arms to protect themselves against the rule of others.

ADV MALAN: Did you at any time consider the taking up of arms as a full scale race war between Whites and Blacks or a war between the army and Blacks, or how did you consider this for yourself, what was your view of this?

MR VOSLOO: I would have said "yes". The Afrikaner people felt threatened and the message which was given to the people, was that people had to take up arms and defend themselves and that is what I did.

ADV MALAN: How did your action link with this view?

MR VOSLOO: Although I was not directly a member of the AWB, I was a serious supporter of their movement. It was my feeling that I am an Afrikaner similar to them and that I had to act in this manner, in the manner expected of an Afrikaner.

ADV MALAN: The question whether you considered the National Party as your enemy, did you consider the National Party to be acting voluntarily in the hand over of power?

MR VOSLOO: Please repeat that?

ADV MALAN: How did you experience this, did the National Party act voluntarily out of their own choice by handing over power, or how did you feel?

MR VOSLOO: The political changes I think, forced them in that direction. They had no real choice whether they wanted to or not, they had to negotiate.

ADV MALAN: Did you ever consider joining one of the action groups such as the AWB, I've heard the term "storm troops", did you consider joining one of these action groups at any time?

MR VOSLOO: I am a solitary person, I see things very individualistically. I understand things in my own view and I act in those terms. If things continued in that direction and if I was forced to join such a action group, I might have, but I would still have preferred to act on my own and do things in my own way.

ADV MALAN: Did you agree with their goals in all senses or in - with the views of their leadership?

MR VOSLOO: No, not always. The basic principle that we had to act against the people who wanted to take over, with this I agreed. That we had to resist such a take over, with that I agreed.

ADV MALAN: In terms of your views of that time, would the attack on the deceased have been considered as part of an armed struggle or not?

MR VOSLOO: Certainly, I would claim that. The climate at that time was such that people had to resist, they had to act against a take over. I felt that I had made a contribution in this regard.

ADV MALAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MALAN.

ADV MALL: Mr Black.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vosloo, just to clarify some issues. In your application form and in your evidence, you always refer to the AWB as having seen some of their meetings. Now is it correct, did you ever attend any of these meetings of the AWB, any rallies held by the AWB?

MR VOSLOO: I saw on television that there were AWB meetings, that there were other rightwing groups who had meetings, that is how I kept up to date with what took place. I also knew many people who actually attended these meetings and in that way I kept up to date. Personally I did not directly attend any such a meeting.

MR BLACK: Am I correct in understanding then that your knowledge of the aims and goals and purposes of the AWB organisation depends solely on what you've seen on the media and on what certain people have told you who have attended their meetings, you have no personal - you personally did not actively participate in any of these political organisation's activities, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: I did not attend these functions, but the goals were the same and I supported these goals. The people who spoke to me after such meetings, who shared these things with me, were for me equally as worthwhile as the people who actually spoke and acted at the meetings. My work was of such a nature that I could not simply go away at any time to attend a meeting. I worked 12 hour shifts, it might have been day or night shifts. Sometimes I worked longer hours than that. With the consequence that I depended on my friends who attended these meetings to inform me of the

events, to keep me up to date and then also what I saw on television.

MR BLACK: On that issue, what was the nature of your work? What were you employed as?

MR VOSLOO: I was a security officer at the Johannesburg City Council.

MR BLACK: As far as your evidence goes, you say that after this killing you got into your - prior to the killing you pursued the deceased, and you attacked him from behind, after this stabbing him 14 times in the chest, you then got into your car and drove home, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: No, I did not drive home, I drove around and somewhat later that evening, I stayed in my car, I slept in my car, apologies.

MR BLACK: But you were sober enough to drive the vehicle, is that correct?

MR VOSLOO: If you want to consider that driving, yes, the Investigative Officer who investigated the case at that time, saw me drive. When I stopped in front of some of my friends' home, he came to me and he spoke to me very seriously because I drove like a maniac. He asked me to stay in the car and to sleep in the car rather than drive off and that is what I did in fact.

MR BLACK: At the time of your committing this murder, I put it to you that the deceased was killed and murdered by you simply because he was Black. Is that not so?

MR VOSLOO: I killed this man because I saw him as a person of the opposition party that would govern me, yes. In that sense, yes.

MR BLACK: In that frame of mind that you were in, would you have killed all Black people that you saw in the street?

MR VOSLOO: At that time my state of mind after days and months, was conditioned to act against people of other colours, of other races. If any other Black man walked passed me, I would most certainly have attacked him also.

MR BLACK: And I assume that you worked with Black colleagues, is that correct, at that time.

MR VOSLOO: That is the case, yes.

MR BLACK: Had you made up your mind, when did you decide, let's put it that way, to start killing Black people?

MR VOSLOO: I would not say that I can give you a specific time. The circumstances at that time was such that one thing followed another. Through the course of time resistance built up, our fears grew. Fears that we would eventually be taken over entirely and we would have no say any more in our own lives. I would say that it was something which came over time, it built up to a climax.

JUDGE WILSON: I have been asked to take a short adjournment at this stage, to enable those responsible for doing so, to make adjustments to the recording devices which we are using. So I propose to do so. We will now take a short adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION:

MR BLACK: ... bypasser.

MR VOSLOO: I wanted to get people to realise that we were not just going to surrender, that we were not going to simply allow some foreign party to take us over, to rule over us.

INTERPRETER: Can the English be heard? Is the English interpretation available?

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

JUDGE WILSON: Re-examination?

ADV MALAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vosloo, how did you think would this and attack on and the death of the particular deceased person, influence the political events? INTERPRETER: Is the interpreting available? Could someone give an indication whether it is available?

MR VOSLOO: We thought that people would note that we are simply not willing to be taken over, that they might simply act more carefully rather than try and run over us.

MS KHAMPEPE: I think Mr Vosloo, I think we have a problem with the English translation. We don't seem to be picking up anything.

INTERPRETER: Can't you hear? Can't you hear the English. It seems that no one is hearing the English translation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Malan, you may continue

ADV MALAN: I think the question was Mr Vosloo, if I remember correctly, what did you think would have been the effect on the political process, what would you achieve in terms of an effect by the act committed during May 1992?

MR VOSLOO: As I said, I had hoped that the opposition of that time and the government would see that the Afrikaner would not simply sit back and wait for another party to rule over them and to dominate them. The intention was for them to take note of the fact that we are dissatisfied with the changes.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you explain to me how this was supposed to come to their notice. Would you have made a press statement the next day to say listen folks, I am going to kill you if you don't stop the negotiations or the take over, or whatever. If you simply find a corpse in a street, how could this in any way contribute some influence on the

political process?

MR VOSLOO: Sir, the media and those who work with them are always well aware of what happens and what does not happen. They see to it that there is coverage of whatever incident or situation occurs. They know of these things. I knew that the matter would appear in the newspapers and the people intended to, would take note of it.

JUDGE WILSON: As was put to you by Mr De Jager, what would have appeared in the newspaper is what unfortunately appears with great regularity in our newspapers, that the body of an unidentified man who had been stabbed to death, was found laying in the road.

MR VOSLOO: What also was said in the newspaper was who was responsible for the death of the unknown deceased person and in which neighbourhood this occurred. I believe that the people for whom I intended to take note of this, did in fact take note of it.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you intend to be arrested and have your name publicised

MR VOSLOO: At the time I had possibly not thought of it in that way, but subsequently I was glad that my effort to make my point, did not pass unnoticed. I must add that I am not glad at this time that the man is dead, I am not happy about the fact that I killed the man. I want you to see that it was the goal that I, or the point of view that I wanted to communicate. I do not want to indicate that I am happy at this stage that I had killed the man.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Vosloo, I thought in your earlier testimony you had made it quite clear that you would not have committed this offence had you been sober? Is that not what you had said earlier on?

MR VOSLOO: It is what I said earlier on. But at the same time, I want to refer you to something else I said namely that with the changes during those times, and with the emotions of people which was fired up more and more, this was something which started small, but which grew and grew. The evening of the act, I gained Dutch courage - some additional courage - through the use of the alcohol. At a later stage, if feelings would have grown hotter, if the scenario of the future appeared even worse than it had at that time, then I might have acted in this way without the use of alcohol. This is a possibility at this time, I can't say what I would have done at a later stage, this is merely something which might have happened.

JUDGE WILSON: You also said that any rational person would have found another way of protesting. Do you recollect saying that?

MR VOSLOO: Yes, I can.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV MALAN: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MALAN.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. He may return. Any further witnesses?

ADV MALAN: No further witnesses, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that your case?

ADV MALAN: That will be the total case, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you have anything to - evidence to lead or witnesses?

MR BLACK: We have no evidence to lead, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON; Are you ready to address us?

ADV MALAN: Yes, I am ready Mr Chairman. In terms of the Act in order for the application to be successful, must

comply with three prerequisites, requirements of the Act and all the relevant facts must be revealed properly and fully.

INTERPRETER: I suggest that the speaker's microphone has cut out.

ADV MALAN: I submit that this has been the case that full revelation has been made of all the facts as well as the reasons why this had occurred.

The question then with respect is whether it was committed with a political motive and in the progress of conflicts of the past.

Section 2 then defines the political objectives and I submit that the applicant bona fide believed that what he did, would promote a political struggle.

The struggle which existed in his mind, the struggle against Black rule. And that as he had set out, that the action wouldn't have taken place if a White person had walked passed and perhaps even not a person of another colour, it was something that was motivated by a fear of being ruled, of not being able to decide things for himself any more.

In addition then also a political objective is defined as if it would have been in reaction against a political uprising and what the motive for the deed or the crime had been.

The applicant pointed out that he had acted in reaction to the changing political climate in the country. The apparent, as he had indicated during the negotiations, the process of handing over of power from the traditional White to a probably Black government.

And that this action, or this act had taken place not for any other reason, and the crime had not been committed

for any other reason, than that it was of political orientation. And that in that manner he had tried to make a mark to delay the process or to derail it totally.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he make no attempt to join any political party where he could have made a mark, he rather killed an innocent bystander. Would you explain that, this is not a man who was joining in the political struggle, he didn't attend meetings. He sometimes watched them on television, or listened to people who had been there?

ADV MALAN: That was the case Mr Chairman, as he had testified, he was fully aware of the objectives of the political movements with which he associated and he believed that he had listened to the cause to an armed struggle and that he had participated in those objectives.

MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Malan, how could a killing of one Black person who is not prominent in any way politically, prevent a take over or even derail negotiations which were taking place between the government of the day and certain liberation movements?

ADV MALAN: Well naturally Mr Chairman, if one looks at his deed, it was an extremely foolish and unthought out action, but it is nevertheless that at that stage he was of the opinion that he could make a contribution.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was it proportional then to the political objective which he wanted to pursue?

ADV MALAN: Could you please repeat the question?

JUDGE WILSON: The Act makes provision for proportionality to be taken into account.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was his act therefore proportional to what he intended to achieve politically?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, yes, that is the only objective which he wished to achieve and once again in his thoughts it would have had an effect and would have been in proportion to that which he strived against, the transformation of a country.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Malan, if one strives for an objective and you wish to opposition to take cognisance of the objective, so that it can influence them in order for them to act differently from that way in which they have acted up to that particular point, then one has to direct one's deed or expression in some or other way and bring it to their attention so that you will influence their way of thinking.

Now, Mr Vosloo said to us that at that stage he had not expected to be arrested and that the murder had to be known. However, later he felt that it was good that it had happened, because now he could convey the message. But if that had been the position, could we then find that at the moment that he committed the crime, he had an objective to influence people while he was keeping that act secret?

ADV MALAN: From what I understood of what the applicant had said, he wished to create fear amongst specifically Black members of the community. And that is what he had strived for. It is clear that he didn't intend any publication thereof.

ADV DE JAGER; Let us take it a step further then. If he had wished to influence the Black portion of the community and install fear in them, then at least it should have been made known that the act had been committed by a White person. But if you just see a corpse laying in the street, you don't know who the murderer had been, how do you influence the people?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, the only argument that I can raise in this respect is that the media would have covered it that a person had been attacked and killed and I state what I said earlier, if one looks at it objectively, then it appears to be a stupid and unthought out act, but what was clearly in his mind at that stage, was that was his objective and that he had hoped that it would become known. There is nothing more that I can argue in this respect.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Malan, wouldn't you agree that the applicant's act of killing this particular person, had no discernable political objective? There is no evidence that in South Hills in particular, Black people were not being murdered at all by White people for whatever reason and therefor that this particular murder would have driven the message home that the killing was political?

Can we discern any political objective from his action?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, apart from saying that the action was through and through of a political motivation, I mean if any other person had been involved, if a White person had walked passed it wouldn't have happened, and that had been the basis of what was going on in his mind, he had the courage to do so at that stage, then naturally it had no ripple effect on the political developments at that stage.

MS KHAMPEPE; I appreciate your difficulty, I think you can proceed.

ADV MALAN: That is as far as I will and can carry the argument.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know how he pleaded in his trial?

ADV MALAN: Mr Chairman, he pleaded not guilty according to what he informed us, because he had argued that he had

been affected to such an extend by the alcohol, that his actions couldn't have been controlled, but that after a witness or two had testified, he changed his plea to guilty.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. Mr Black, have you got anything you wish to add?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, except to submit in my assessment of the evidence, that Mr Vosloo the applicant, has not satisfied the requirements of the Act for a number of reasons. One of which is he has, my submission is that the act appears to have been committed for extreme racist motives as opposed to political, achieving a political objective and importantly the act and the gravity of the act is out of all proportion to whatever objective he hoped to achieve.

The proportionality portion is not also complied with. Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: We will take time to arrive to our decision. That completes the roll for today, does it?

ADV MALAN: That is so Mr Chairman.

JOHANNESBURG AMNESTY HEARINGS

DATE: 08-04-1997 NAME: LEO HENDRIK FRONEMAN

PIETER J. HARMSE

JUDGE WILSON: ... applicant, through no fault of his and I apologise for the fact that some of you may have been sitting here, waiting for some time.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, we are ready to commence proceedings in the matter of Mr Froneman and Mr Harmse.

Mr Froneman's application number is 0395/96 and Mr Harmse's application number is 3275/96. Mr Chairman these two matters will be heard together as they relate to essentially the same facts and not one, but the main incident is similar in both cases.

The effected parties in this matter, by that I mean both the victims and the persons who suffered damage to their property, have all been notified. I, this morning received a telephone call from Mrs Labushachne who is the widow of the deceased party. She has indicated to me that she would prefer not to attend the hearing as she still feels very emotionally upset about the fact that she has lost her husband as a result of the incidents which are going to be heard today.

And she feels that it would simply rake up the past and serve no purpose for her to attend. She is not formally opposing the granting or otherwise of the application. As far as the other persons concerned, there are Police Officers who worked with the deceased. They have also indicated to me that they do not wish to attend the hearing. They are aware of the fact that it is to be heard, but they

too feel, still feel very emotional about the issue.

They are not happy about the fact that application has been made for amnesty, but they are not opposing the application, formally opposing the application.

The owner of the property, whose property was damaged, Mr Mayet and his son have both been notified of the hearing, the date, time and venue has been conveyed to them. I have received communication this morning at about half past nine or quarter to ten that Mr Mayet, one of the Mayets will be attending, will be in attendance during the course of the hearing. It has been explained to them that we need to proceed.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got acknowledgement of service on Mr Mayet?

MR BLACK: Yes, on both him and his son.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MR BLACK: And I've confirmed with the Superintendent at the Bronkhorst Police station that none of the policemen wish to attend the hearing. I also have acknowledgements of receipt on them.

In this matter Mr Froneman is being represented by Adv Louisa van der Walt and Mr Harmse is being represented by Adv H. Prinsloo. And I understand that they have supplemented their written applications for amnesty and copies of the supplemented papers will be handed down to the panel, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I confirm that I appear on behalf of Mr Harmse in this matter. Supplementary declarations and documentation have been prepared and submitted to the Committee.

I will therefor request the Committee to hand in these

documents as proof and that which is referred to as Appendix A, as evidence A, B as B, then evidence tagged C will be the Boere Weerstandsbeweging document, D will be the plea that was delivered in the Supreme court of South Africa with relation to Harmse. That is the documentation on which we depend in this matter.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry can I say something there. On the papers put before us, the first Annexure A is at page 10 of FA, Annexure B is at page 11, which was the next one?

ADV PRINSLOO: Exhibit C is the one titled Boere Weerstandsbeweging.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 22 and then another Annexure A from Mr Froneman.

ADV VAN DER WALT: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: At page 25.

ADV PRINSLOO: That's correct. Exhibit D, Mr Chairman, what page will that be?

JUDGE WILSON: Which is D?

ADV PRINSLOO: D is a plea tendered by Harmse. Is that before you Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: It is in the bundle ...

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that is not, that does not form part of the original bundle which was handed to you. As a matter of clarity, the plea does not form part of the bound bundle Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That's a bundle of papers that had been put before us and that starts Verklaring en Gevolge, Pieter Johannes Harmse, is that Exhibit D? Right.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I represent Mr Froneman in this matter and I would like to submit Exhibit E, which you have in your bundle, on page 25 as the further, or the rest

of the statement of his initial amnesty application.

He also depends on Exhibit B, which is Appendix B on your page 11. Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, from where was Mr Harmse brought, which prison?

MR BLACK: From Pretoria Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: And was there any reason advanced why he was so late?

MR BLACK: Not to me, Mr Chairman, no reason was given. Perhaps my learned friend, Mr Prinsloo might be able to shed some light on that.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps find out from the prison authorities what is the problem and whether anything could be done to it?

MR BLACK: Yes, I'll do so. They are present and I will make enquiries.

JUDGE WILSON: I haven't had a chance of checking the bundle that is now being handed in. Does it contain all the pages that are not in the original bound copy?

ADV PRINSLOO; Mr Chairman, it contains all the pages.

JUDGE WILSON: Now where do we find the affidavit from Froneman which appears on page 21 of the bound copy, the first page of it appears on page 21 and it then stops?

ADV VAN DER WALT: I've got a copy for you and it is ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is it in the bundle?

ADV VAN DER WALT: No, it is not in the bundle. Could I ...

MR BLACK: In the bundle, Mr Froneman's affidavit is on page 25, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Of the bundle we were handed today?

MR BLACK: Oh, no, I am talking about the bound bundle.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 25 is Annexure A, or Annexure E.

MR BLACK: Yes and what has been handed up by my learned friend, Mrs van der Walt, is also referred to as Annexure A, Aanhangsel A.

JUDGE WILSON: It is page 21, if you look at page 21 of the bound copy, it contains the first page of his affidavit and not the second page.

MR BLACK; Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Which she is now handing up as the second page. Well, she is handing up both pages.

ADV PRINSLOO: If one pages to page 25 of the bound bundle ...

JUDGE WILSON: That is Annexure A, that is not his affidavit.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, we do not have pages with Mr Froneman's attestation clause. We only have page 1 of his affidavit, which appears to be an incomplete affidavit.

JUDGE WILSON: That's what I've just been handed, the complete affidavit which will be, should be on page 21 and 21(a) of the bound bundle.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Yes, the Affidavit refers to Appendix A and to Appendix B, and these actually belong together, it was just a brief sworn statement that he had seen both Appendices.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. Right, Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I call the applicant in the matter Mr Harmse, as first witness.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Harmse, will you please stand.

PIETER JOHANNES HARMSE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: As you wish Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse you were arrested and charged in the Supreme court

regarding this matter, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: The main charge inter alia was one of murder and various other charges, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: During your court case you offered a plea of guilty to the State, guilty of culpable homicide and various other pleas that are set out in Appendix D, serving before the Commission, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that the State did not accept your plea regarding guilty on charges of culpable homicide?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: However, at the beginning of the trial you pleaded guilty of murder?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did plea guilty to murder.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Exhibit D the plea as set out there, was also accepted by the State except for the culpable homicide charge?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, the case served before Judge Els, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What was the total sentence that you have to serve?

MR HARMSE: 18 years effectively.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when were you sentenced?

MR HARMSE: 8th of May 1996.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, to return and to start with your background. You were born on the 20th of February 1952, is

that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Just for record purposes, that will then be Exhibit A to which you are referring, is that correct, regarding the background?

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, it is correct Mr Chairman. We are now referring to Exhibit A, page 10 as numbered for you. You also have page 10, Exhibit A in front of you Mr Harmse?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is.

ADV PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Honourable Committee where your political involvement started?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, my political career started at a very early age. My father regularly participated in voting and in 1960, I remember there was the old Vierkleur, the four coloured flag, to show that the Boers wanted a republic as it used to be before.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you or your father attend any political meetings?

MR HARMSE: Yes, my father regularly attended meetings and I went with him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you undergo any military training?

MR HARMSE: In 1970 I was called up for service in the SA Defence Force and I received training there.

ADV PRINSLOO: What age were you at that stage?

MR HARMSE: I was 17 when I joined the SADF.

ADV PRINSLOO: In the Defence Force, were you informed regarding who the enemy was at that stage in the country or not?

MR HARMSE: We were told that the ANC/SACP formed our enemy and we had to fight against them and against terrorists.

ADV PRINSLOO: And were you told at that stage what the plans of the ANC/SACP were, as you stated it, what they wanted to do?

MR HARMSE: The ANC/SACP's plans were to conduct a revolutionary war against the then government to make the country ungovernable. We were also told that they are trained in communist countries and that they could thus return and commit acts of terror by attacking Black council members, the South African Police, security forces and officials of the State and eliminate them.

ADV PRINSLOO: You personally, were you against the SACP/ANC as they were known?

MR HARMSE: I was totally against that kind of statements to take over the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: In addition to the fact that you had been called up by the Defence Force, did you personally feel that you had an obligation to defend the country, or not?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I personally felt I had to defend my country against the enemy.

ADV PRINSLOO: The then government, in what light did they regard the ANC/SACP alliance and their words and statements against the country?

MR HARMSE: No, they weren't friendly, the then government accepted the ANC/SACP declarations as a declaration of war.

ADV PRINSLOO: And in that light, you were then called up for border duty?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I served twice on the border and this was in the combatting of terrorism inter alia communism.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where did you serve on the border?

MR HARMSE: It was on the Angola border.

ADV PRINSLOO: And were you involved in the war there?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I was part of the war there.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, during 1990 did you attend any meetings of any specific political parties?

MR HARMSE: Yes, during 1990 I myself as rightwinger started attending rightwing political parties.

ADV PRINSLOO: Which meetings did you attend, which party's?

MR HARMSE: Some of the AWB and the BWB, Boere Weerstandsbeweging meetings.

ADV PRINSLOO: What does BWB stand for?

MR HARMSE: BWB stands for Boere Weerstandsbeweging, Boere Resistance Movement.

ADV PRINSLOO: What are the objectives of this organisation, briefly?

MR HARMSE: The aims and objectives are briefly to fight for God, the nation and the father land, to resist against any other people who don't want to allow us our own country, to fight against them.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did the BWB at any stage strive like other organisations to obtain a Volkstaat?

MR HARMSE: Yes, they did strive for a Volkstaat, their own state, or national state.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where would this national state be situated?

MR HARMSE: The national state would be the original Boer Republics, Transvaal, Free State and Northern Natal.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the principles of the BWB, Boere Weerstandsbeweging as set out in Exhibit C, which is serving before the Honourable Committee, is that correct? Do you have it in front of you? It is the document Programme of Principles, Boere Weerstandsbeweging.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: It is page 22, Mr Chairman, chapter C. Now if we refer to the second page of Appendix C, with the title Boere Weerstandsbeweging, Programme of Principles, Foundation, was their objective as set out in the first paragraph?

MR HARMSE: The first paragraph is very clearly the objectives of the BWB, the foundation on which the organisation rested and the guidelines according to which they acted on that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: To return then to Exhibit A, page 3 as typed at the top there, you referred to meetings that you've attended and you've referred to the aims and objectives, what was your impression around these objectives of the BWB?

Was it a weak set of goals or were they pure?

MR HARMSE: They were very pure to me, they were the purest of those of all the organisations and I decided to join them.

ADV PRINSLOO: The meetings which you've attended, those of the BWB, what emphasis was place on these goals by the speakers?

MR HARMSE: Well the emphasis was always on the fact that we had to combat communism, in other words the ANC/SACP alliance. We had to fight to preserve our country, our language, our religion and to keep it pure.

ADV PRINSLOO: The speakers at these meetings, can you remember whom they were by there names if possible?

MR HARMSE: The main speaker was also the Chief Leader, Mr Andrew Ford and then at various meetings, there were different other speakers, inter alia Barend Strydom's wife and his mother-in-law.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who were the other people in the top

structure of the BWB whom you could mention, members?

MR HARMSE: There was a Combat General, Mr Vaughn Bands.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Mr Vaughn Bands, where did he live at that stage?

MR HARMSE: Mr Vaughn Bands lived in Cullinan, just outside Cullinan on a small holding.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where did you live?

MR HARMSE: I also lived in Cullinan.

ADV PRINSLOO: To continue with Appendix A, paragraph 7, do you have that in front of you? The National Party in 1990 and thence onwards, what impression did it leave on you? What was their plan according to your interpretation?

MR HARMSE: At that stage, the National Party had decided to give over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. Mr de Klerk at that stage also mentioned that all religions would become equal and that was something that was totally against the BWB and against my own objectives because we believe that there is only one God.

ADV PRINSLOO: So is your testimony that the BWB was against this?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that which you mention here is also the view of the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: The BWB itself, did it also consist of a military wing, a section of it which was known as the BRL, the Boere Republican Army? Die BRL, die Boere Republikeinse Leër.

MR HARMSE: Dit is korrek.

ADV PRINSLOO: To which could you equate that, to which organisation was it similar?

MR HARMSE: The BRL was to the BWB, as Umkonto We Sizwe was to the ANC.

ADV PRINSLOO: In order to become a member of this Boere Republican Army, did they set rules, did they lay down rules?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What were those requirements?

MR HARMSE: To carry out special instructions, tasks and one could be included for this purpose with the BRL.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did they look at a person's background, dependability etc?

MR HARMSE: Yes, they did. The person had to be dependable and wished to fight for the BWB.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you become a member of the BRL and what rank did you have?

MR HARMSE: I was a member of the BRL and I was a Commandant in the BWB.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you become a member of the BRL as a Commandant in 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Just a moment Mr Prinsloo, was he a Commandant in the BRL or the BWB, that wasn't clear.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct that you were a Commandant in the BRL?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I was a Commandant in the BWB, but a member of the BRL.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have the same rank in the BRL?

MR HARMSE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, you are aware of the meetings held at Kempton Park, known as CODESA?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are also aware that certain negotiations were taking place at that stage at CODESA?

MR HARMSE: Yes, those negotiations at the time were aimed at handing over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance by negotiations.

ADV PRINSLOO: I refer you to paragraph 10 of Exhibit A ... (tape ends) ...

MR HARMSE: The BWB were against negotiations with communists as such and they also at various meetings stated that they would not negotiate, but that they would rather fight for their country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Let me state it this way, was there any reference to a specific race group?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: By the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes. There was specific reference also to our religion, because there were many Muslims in the ANC who were of high rank in the ANC and once they had taken over, our religion would be totally under threat.

ADV PRINSLOO: During your membership of the BWB, meetings were held, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Specific meetings were held by the BWB, let me state it that way. Is it correct that there was a meeting held at Cullinan in 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, there was a meeting in Cullinan.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was that in May 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now what happened at that meeting?

MR HARMSE: At that meeting a video recording was made where the BWB would declare war against the then government

because they wanted to hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. During the recording BWB members wore masks and they had a show of force by carrying arms, firearms and firing off tear gas.

ADV PRINSLOO: After this meeting at Cullinan and the show of force there, there was another meeting held at Belfast, a rally?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Once again by the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that was also held on a farm in a shed where the BWB members once again wore masks and a variety of flags were pinned up against the walls - the Vierkleur, four coloured flag and the BWB flag and war was declared against the then government.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was there a video recording made at all?

MR HARMSE: Yes, a video recording was made of this.

ADV PRINSLOO: What became of these video recordings, do you know?

MR HARMSE: I kept the copies of the videos with me and when I was arrested, this was confiscated by the South African Police Force.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you hand these to them?

MR HARMSE: No, they confiscated them - it themselves.

ADV PRINSLOO: After the meeting at Belfast, there was a further meeting in Rustenburg, is that correct?.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: At whose place was this meeting held?

MR HARMSE: This was on the farm of Mr Andrew Ford.

ADV PRINSLOO: That would be the leader of the BWB?

MR HARMSE: That is the case.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was he present?

MR HARMSE: Yes, he was also present at this meeting.

ADV PRINSLOO: Persons attending this meeting, who were these? Were these officers, general public?

MR HARMSE: These were the officers of the Boer Resistance Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: Exclusively officers?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were any decisions made at this particular meeting at Rustenburg?

MR HARMSE: At this particular meeting it was mentioned that we had to prepare for war and that there would be a coup d'etat since there were Boer Resistance Army staff at several at the electrical power stations who were staff at these power stations and who could then switch off the power supply.

ADV PRINSLOO: What other instructions were given at this meeting?

MR HARMSE: There was the additional instruction that everyone in their own area, had to generate chaos. We were supposed to identify our own targets and advance the aims and goals of the Boer Resistance Army with our own initiative and we could decide on our own, what methods we wanted to use. At that time I had already obtained explosives, which we had been instructed to collect.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have knowledge with regard to the use of explosives?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct. I worked on the mines where I had seen how explosives were used.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were the members of the Boer Resistance Army trained in any way with regard to the use of explosives?

MR HARMSE; Yes, I provided training with regard to the

use of explosives to members of the Boer Resistance Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where did this training take place?

MR HARMSE: The training took place on the farm of Mr Andrew Ford.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could you tell us roughly when this occurred? You've already referred to meetings.

MR HARMSE: Yes, such training normally took place during meetings. During the course of meetings.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you look at Exhibit A, paragraph 14, during September 1993, were you in hospital?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: I want to state it to you further, was the person next to you, Mr Froneman, known to you?

MR HARMSE: Yes, he is known to me. I chose him, or selected him as a member of my cell since we worked with a cell structure in the Boer Resistance Army. I chose him to work with me.

ADV PRINSLOO: To return to these cell groups. Did every cell consist of a leader and members or troops?

MR HARMSE: Yes, every cell consisted of two or more persons, normally an officer and someone whom he could select as a trustworthy person.

ADV PRINSLOO: This would then have been Mr Froneman whom you trusted?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is the case.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you in any way give instructions to Mr Froneman?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I instructed Mr Froneman to experiment with a wide range of explosive devices which he then did.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you in any way train Mr Froneman with regard to the operation of the explosive devices?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did.

ADV PRINSLOO: During September of 1993, did you receive any instructions from anybody?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I received a telephonic call from an unknown person who instructed me that it was from the Boer Resistance Army and that the war had started.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any prior arrangement that such instructions would be given from any person?

MR HARMSE: Yes, we were told at meetings that such instructions would be received, either telephonically or personally.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because of this instruction which you've received, did you give any further instructions to any other person?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I instructed Mr Froneman to identify a target.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before we pay any attention to the target, did you make any preparations with the regard to the devices or the components of the devices which were to be used?

MR HARMSE: Yes, since I worked on the mines I had access to a range of explosive devices and trigger devices.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any other materials with which to build the explosive devices?

MR HARMSE: Yes, apart from the detonators I also had fertilizer which could be used in the explosive devices and I instructed Mr Froneman to obtain diesel which could be used in the explosive devices.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have taken you away from the topic - you had said Mr Froneman was instructed to pay attention to the targets. Did Mr Froneman know what manner of target had to be selected?

MR HARMSE: At that time I instructed Mr Froneman that since the Boer Resistance Army was apposed to the onslaught on our religion, I instructed Mr Froneman to select a target which would involve Muslims.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it possible for Mr Froneman to identify a target.

MR HARMSE: Mr Froneman approached me and informed me that he had selected a target, we discussed the target and decided together that it would have been a good target.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where would this target have been?

MR HARMSE: It was an Indian complex in Bronkhorstspruit, a commercial centre.

ADV PRINSLOO: What additional planning did you make with regard to carrying out this instruction and with regard to the target?

MR HARMSE: I instructed Mr Froneman to prepare the electrical part of the bomb and that we would depart the next morning at three o'clock to plant the bomb.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was Mr Froneman resident with you at that time or somewhere else?

MR HARMSE: No, he lived with his father and I told him to come to my house at about three o'clock the morning.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was this in Cullinan?

MR HARMSE: Yes and I also told him to bring fake number plates which we could then use on the motor vehicle.

ADV PRINSLOO: On the 18th of September 1993, did Mr Froneman indeed come to you house?

MR HARMSE: Yes, but without the number plates.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you do with regard to the number plates or did you do nothing in this regard?

MR HARMSE: We placed the bomb in the car, we drove to

the police barracks where Mr Froneman removed number plates from a police bus.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you do with these number plates after you removed this from the bus, could you tell the Committee?

MR HARMSE: On our way to Bronkhorstspruit, we placed the number plates on the vehicle which we were driving in.

ADV PRINSLOO: Please continue.

MR HARMSE: We drove passed the business centre, or commercial centre to check whether there were any persons present there. When we noted that there was no one around, we parked the vehicle at the centre, we carried the bomb to the place where we set it, in front of the door. He returned to the motor vehicle and I attempted to arm the device.

After some difficulty, I experienced some difficulty and I was not able to arm the device, Mr Froneman returned and assisted me in arming the device. Eventually I told him that we should rather leave the bomb, since we were not able to arm it, but he told me that it would be a waste of time and it would be of no use if we did not arm the bomb. Eventually we succeeded in arming the bomb.

We returned to our motor vehicle and we then returned home. Just outside Bronkhorstspruit we stopped, removed the number plates. One of the number plates was damaged. On our way back to Cullinan, we threw one of these number plates out of the window, the damaged number plate.

ADV PRINSLOO: You may continue.

MR HARMSE: I then dropped Mr Froneman and he returned to replace the one number plate on the police bus and we both returned to our houses.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the remainder of this particular Saturday, what did you do?

MR HARMSE: Later during the course of the Saturday morning, myself and Mr Vaughn Bans went through to Rustenburg for a meeting of the Boer Resistance Movement.

ADV PRINSLOO: The section which the witness is referring to, is not contained in the affidavit and I apologise for this omission.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just get some additional clarity. You armed and placed the bomb, when was this supposed to explode, could you in any way control it?

MR HARMSE: No, the explosion of the bomb could not be controlled. It would have been set off by some movement.

ADV DE JAGER: The bomb could therefor explode say at twelve o'clock in the day when there were a lot of people around?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there no electrical mechanism which was able to control the device?

MR HARMSE: It had a switch which would have been a release device.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter unfortunately did not get the last sentence.

ADV PRINSLOO: At the place where you set the bomb, by your calculation and taking into account the fact that you set the bomb very early in the morning, when did you think would there have been contact with this bomb and by whom?

MR HARMSE: At that time, I did not know who would have set off the device. I thought initially that at the unlocking of the shops, the bomb would be moved.

JUDGE WILSON: What did the bomb look like?

MR HARMSE: The bomb was contained in a 25 litre plastic

container.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was the bomb placed inside something? Was the plastic container in anything else?

MR HARMSE: No, the plastic container was placed on its own in front of the particular shop.

ADV PRINSLOO: Should this bomb have exploded and should there have been damage, or if persons were to be injured or killed, would there have been any reaction from the side of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I would have contacted with the media to inform them that the Boer Resistance Movement would have taken the responsibility for the bombing.

ADV PRINSLOO: To continue with the events of the Saturday - after the bomb had been placed, you informed the Committee that you travelled with Mr Vaughn Bands to Rustenburg to the farm of the leader of the Boer Resistance Movement, Mr Andrew Ford. Is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: At this particular meeting of the Boer Resistance Movement at Rustenburg, was anything handed to you, any award?

MR HARMSE: During this meeting I was made a General and I was given wings to hand to Mr Froneman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you then return to Cullinan?

MR HARMSE: Yes, after this meeting we returned to Cullinan to our homes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you make this reward to Mr Froneman, did you hand these wings to him or not?

MR HARMSE: Yes, during the course of the next day.

JUDGE WILSON: Apologies Mr Chairman, the interpreter gave it up as Mr Cullinan.

INTERPRETER: My apologies.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, it would have been Mr Froneman and it was at Cullinan, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, it would have been Mr Froneman at Cullinan. During the next day I congratulated Mr Froneman on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement and I handed over the wings.

ADV PRINSLOO: What would this handing over of the wings have implied?

MR HARMSE: It would have implied that he became a full member of the Boer Republican Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: This action of yours, was this something that you did for yourself or on whose behalf did you do it?

MR HARMSE: I planted the bomb on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement so that we could make the declaration or could show that the country could not simply hand over the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any personal gain out of this bomb for yourself?

MR HARMSE: No, I gained nothing from this, no profit.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any personal grudge against anyone at the shop that caused you to plant this particular bomb?

MR HARMSE: No, I had no personal grudge against anyone.

ADV PRINSLOO: When did you hear that there was in fact an explosion?

MR HARMSE: This was on our way to the meeting at Rustenburg where we heard over the radio that a police officer was killed and that another police officer had been injured.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it your intention that a police officer

should be injured or killed by the explosion?

MR HARMSE: It was not the intention particularly to kill a police officer.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you keep in mind that if you were to plant a bomb, that a person or persons might be injured or killed?

MR HARMSE: I did not plant the bomb with the intention of killing any particular persons, but as in any war there would be innocent persons in cross-fire.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you did keep in mind that someone might be injured or killed?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did keep this in mind.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the presentation of this case in the Supreme court, the State attorney Adv Regal du Toit, was this referred to as a political event or what was the case?

MR HARMSE: Mr du Toit did present the case as a political case.

ADV PRINSLOO: Can you remember in the judgement of His Honour Judge Els, whether he referred to the political ground?

MR HARMSE: In his judgement, Judge Els did say that he could see that this was a political act.

ADV PRINSLOO: In Annexure B which is before you- in front of you ...

JUDGE WILSON: Are you moving on to something new now? We will take a short adjournment at this stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: I apologise Mr Chairman, I tried to attract my

learned friend's attention. I simply wish to inform the Committee that Mr and Mrs Mayet are present, that is the owner of the shop in - commercial centre in question and they are quite satisfied that the hearings have proceeded in their absence, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I am still referring to Exhibit A, the last page, page 10. It is also your numbered page 10, Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse, after you had heard over the radio that a policeman had been killed in this particular bomb explosion, how did you feel about this?

MR HARMSE: I felt very bad when I heard the news that a policeman had been killed in the bomb explosion.

ADV PRINSLOO: The particular bomb, when you set it, would it go off very easily or would it be difficult, could you please tell the Committee what could set off the bomb?

MR HARMSE: With any movement, as soon as the bomb was moved or the vibration of a large truck, would trigger the bomb.

JUDGE WILSON: As a matter of interest, what sort of detonator did you have? I've heard of something I think, a B4?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I am not entire sure what type of detonator we used or what it is called.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was that Sir, also obtained from the mine?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct. We obtained the detonators from the mine.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, did you obtain any reading matter regarding how to make a bomb and how to act in this regard?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did obtain reading matter from Mr

Vaughn Bands at that time. It was called How to be a Good Terrorist, one of these books. It explains exactly how a bomb can be made from various substances.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any other books or obtained any other books?

MR HARMSE: Yes, there were others, I can't remember the exact names, it was something like Recipes for Bombs.

ADV PRINSLOO: These books, particular this book How to be a Good Terrorist, did it belong to the Organisation or how did you obtain this?

MR HARMSE: That is the book issued by the ANC to their people in order to make bombs easily and cheaply.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, I wish to refer now to Exhibit B, Appendix B, page 11, Mr Chairman. Do you have it in front of you Mr Harmse? In the original application which you submitted to the Committee, paragraph 10(A) where the question is "state the political objective you wish to achieve", is it correct that - and I refer to Exhibit B, you set it out in that Exhibit B?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it is also cross-referred to in certain respects in Exhibit A to which you have already referred?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as question 10(b) is concerned, your motivation, the reason why such deeds or miscarriages were done and the deeds with relation to which you committed these deeds, it is question 10(b), Exhibit B, again. Were that had as a political objective if I refer to your original application question 11(a), do you have it in front of you? Was the deed the mission, miscarriage, etc, done or carried out with the approval of the particular

organisation,liberation movement, government body, etc, you answered no. Why did you answer no?

MR HARMSE: Because at that stage I had not obtained legal council and I didn't want to mention people's names at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you affirm the correctness of Exhibits A and B and then also your plea Exhibit D, submitted to the Committee?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I do.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Committee, my learned friends and I have discussed the presentation of evidence and we have agreed that Mr Froneman's evidence will now also be presented, prior to my asking any questions.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, before we come to you, I wondered if Mrs van der Walt wanted to ask any questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: There is just a single question which I would like to gain clarity on. Mr Harmse in your testimony you stated that when you attended the meeting in Rustenburg where various instructions were given to you, that meeting was only for officers, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: But according to Mr Froneman, he was also at that meeting. Is that so?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you please explain, he was not an officer at that stage, what happened there?

MR HARMSE: Quite a number of the Boer Resistance Movement members attended the meeting, but this particular

meeting was intended for officers although other members were also present, who did not join in the meeting itself.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Then it is correct if Mr Froneman would say that he was there but that he was not in the meeting itself, that he did not sit in the meeting? ... (tape ends)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree that we reserve any questioning by Mr Black till after ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Right, very well.

LEO HENDRIK FRONEMAN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, when were you born?

MR FRONEMAN: I was born 19 June 1974 in Pretoria.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell us your home, parental home in which you grew up, what sort of politics were there?

MR FRONEMAN: I grew up in a conservative environment. My parents were members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party, the Reformed National Party. My standard five teacher was also a member of the HNP. I also attended meetings of the AWB with my father and I started collecting badges.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Would you please speak slower, the interpreters would like to keep up. Okay, Mr Froneman, did you also join a political organisation at that stage?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct in 1991 I did so. I joined the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Afrikaner Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: That's correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And that is a rightwing political party?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And after joining them, did you attend courses?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I regularly attended meetings. We

joined training camps where we were taught how to act in a military manner, we underwent military training, we did firearm training, arms training, ammunition training, training to teach us how to act when, or react when we drove into a trap with vehicles, how to escape from such a situation.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you should just change seats.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understand correctly from what you said Mr Froneman, what you experienced at the AWB was that you were trained to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, we were trained as soldiers to carry on a war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And why did you have to make war, what did you AWB tell you?

MR FRONEMAN: The AWB told us that the then government was in the process of giving over the government to the SACP/ANC alliance, that they were not going to insure that we were to be given our own ethnic state, Volkstaat, they would simply hand over the country.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And did you also at the AWB undergo specific courses, special courses?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I was also trained by the Iron Guard and I was selected to the Scorpion Unit.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The Iron Guard, that is a section of the AWB, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, it is a wing of the AWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is their objective?

MR FRONEMAN: Their main function is to protect the leader, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, they protect him and his property, and they also give training to our other members.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You referred to the Scorpion Unit? What was their purpose?

MR FRONEMAN: Our purpose was to protect the smallholdings, farms, houses of people around Cullinan.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you think when the AWB told you that the then government was going to give over the country, hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance, how did you feel about it?

MR FRONEMAN: I knew that should the government hand over the country to the alliance, then we as a Boer nation would disappear, we would not be able to continue with our own culture, our religion would be contaminated and everything as we knew it, would disappear.

MRS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, at such a young age, could you understand it?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did understand it as such, yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Okay, you say in your application that on 16 December 1991 you were at a meeting, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: We were with the AWB, we went to Barnard Stadium in Kempton Park and we had a rally and Mr Eugene Terreblanche, the leader of the AWB spoke to us, addressed us and he said it would be the last day of the covenant before the country would be handed over.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So Mr Terreblanche was also making war talk throughout?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, they said that they were definitely committed to war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And you later met the daughter of Mr Harmse and you became friends, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, did you come into contact with the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, I met Mr Harmse and together with him, I went to meetings of the Boer Resistance Movement.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What were you taught there?

MR FRONEMAN: I saw that their objects were much purer that those of the AWB. The AWB weren't so much concerned, they were more against Blacks, they said the enemy were the Blacks they were going to take over the country, but then I saw that the BWB were not just against the Blacks, they would like the Blacks also to have their own land, but used the Blacks as chess pieces, were the people whom we should attack.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Whom are these chess pieces you refer to, the people who then manipulated the chess pieces? Sorry, I want to restate my question, who are the people who used the Blacks as chess pieces?

MR FRONEMAN: That was the ANC/SACP alliance, the top structure.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I see that the Boer Resistance Movement refer to the Boere volk, the Boer nation and not as the AWB which refers to the Afrikaner Boer nation.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct. The BWB said that inter alia the Afrikaner could be anybody who spoke Afrikaans, where as we are the Boers, that is one nation, the Boer nation.

MRS VAN DER WALT: But Mr Vaughn Bans is an Englishman, isn't he? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Andrew Ford?

MR FRONEMAN: Also probably English.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So people who spoke other languages could also be members of the BWB, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: After ...

MS KHAMPEPE: Excuse me, if you say people who also spoke other languages, could be members of the BWB, did that include White people only or Black people who could also speak a particular language akin to that spoken by the BWB, could also be members of that Organisation?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, I would like to have the question restated, I didn't follow from the beginning.

MS KHAMPEPE: Could members or communities who spoke the same language as the ones predominantly spoken by BWB members also belong to that Organisation and in this instance could you have Black people who spoke Afrikaans, belonging to BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, no, my reply to that is no, not anybody could join the BWB. You had to be somebody who believed in the same faith, you had to be - how should I say - you had to be a member of the Boer nation to join the movement. The language didn't matter but the main language was Afrikaans, but you had to be a member of the Boer nation to join them.

MS KHAMPEPE: But the English were not of the Boer stock, were they?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I would say no, but there are still some of them who, in their hearts, were on our side and would assist us in our struggle for a Volkstaat.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understood correctly and I just

wish to perhaps repeat the question of the Committee member to you. Is it correct if I understand correctly, that it doesn't matter what language you speak, but the people that were members of the BWB were Whites only? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Whites only?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you then join the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: When did you join the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: In May 1993 I joined the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you attend any meetings?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, on the day that I became a member, we went to Mr Vaughn Bands' plot, Mr Harmse and I and we were sworn in as members of the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And who was the leader at that particular meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: The main speaker was the leader, Mr Andrew Ford and Mr Vaughn Bands was also one of the speakers.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were there also other speakers who specifically conveyed messages at the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: No, not that I can remember.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And at all the meetings which you attended, what was the message that every time was carried across to you?

MR FRONEMAN: The message was that the government was not going to comply with our demands for a Volkstaat and it was stated that we would have to fight for that which was ours and our forefathers if we wanted to retain that.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were the BWB members proponents of a Volkstaat?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, they were very strongly in favour of a Volkstaat.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Where would it be situated?

MR FRONEMAN: The command was that it would be the old Transvaal, Northern Natal, Natal and the Orange Free State.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it Northern Natal?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, Northern Natal.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Okay, there was a meeting that Mr Harmse testified about which took place at Cullinan and where he stated that the BWB had a show of force, did you also attend that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Court what happened at that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: We met on the smallholding on that particular day, we all wore masks. We wore our different uniforms, we all carried firearms and we lined up in one long row and the camera focused on all of us to show how many we were, our full strength. We then drove to Belfast, we met there in a hall decorated with flags on the walls, Boer flags and at the tables there were various BWB officers wearing masks as well and they declared war against the government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understand you correctly, the BWB at the meetings also encouraged everybody at the meetings to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I might also add that they distributed pamphlets to incite people to prepare for war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is that under the BWB members?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And if you say to prepare, what do you mean by that?

MR FRONEMAN: The people had to collect adequate medical supplies, food supplies so that if the war were to break out, we had the necessary stock.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you also attend a meeting where Barend Strydom's wife and her mother addressed the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that was also just outside Cullinan.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did they say to the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Okay, Barend Strydom's mother-in-law was called, Trudy and his wife Karin Strydom addressed the meeting and they told the meeting that the men, that the woman should assist the wives in making war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So it was just not aimed at men, everybody had to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you at the meeting that Mr Harmse referred to in Rustenburg?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you involved in the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I was not in the meeting itself, I was on guard outside. Mr Harmse later on informed me what had been said in the meeting.

MRS VAN DER WALT: On whose smallholding was this?

MR FRONEMAN: It was just outside Rustenburg, Mr Andrew Ford's smallholding.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you see Mr Andrew Ford there?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, he was there.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Could you please inform the Committee what Mr Harmse had said to you had to take place or did take place there?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse told me that the BWB had told him that they would have a coup d'etat and that at various power

stations they had people on duty who were ready to cut the power and he told me that the officers had also been instructed in their own towns areas to create chaos.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you a member of Mr Harmse's cell?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have to carry out his instructions?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I acted directly on his instructions.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Do you have any knowledge of the Boer Republican Army?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I do.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is it?

MR FRONEMAN: It was the military wing of the BWB, like Umkonto We Sizwe would be the military wing of the ANC.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you want to belong to the BRM?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I felt that I would like to join them because I could serve my nation and my country better in their ranks.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In your application you stated the previous State President, Mr F.W. de Klerk's announcement regarding religious groups. Could you please tell us what you meant by that?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr de Klerk, F.W. de Klerk, had said that all religious groups would be equal and at that stage I was still at school and even then, religious instruction was taken away at our school.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Was that at your school?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT; How did you feel about this?

MR FRONEMAN: They took our whole existence away from us, we stand by our religion. To me it was totally wrong.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In the negotiations of CODESA, at that time you were also a member of the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And there something occurred at CODESA where a large group of people met and drove an armed vehicle through the windows at the conference centre.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Do you know anything about it?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I was instructed to go along.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Who instructed you?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse, I also went with him and we went to stop the negotiations.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you have to do there?

MR FRONEMAN: We just had to protest.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were other BWB members also present?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, there were other members of the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Why did you have to protest there?

MR FRONEMAN: Well, we had to protest against the negotiations of the then government in order to hand over our country to the ANC/SACP alliance.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During September 1993 when Mr Harmse was in hospital, did he give any instructions to you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, Mr Harmse instructed me to act in accordance with the training I had received from him by building hand grenades, smoke bombs and other bombs, test them and come and report back to him about the results.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You say the training that he had already given you, what type of training had you undergone?

MR FRONEMAN: It was explosives training and various other things. I may also add that the book to which he referred, the name he couldn't remember, members of the BWB called it

the James Bond Bible. That's the other one, the one with the recipes which he couldn't remember.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Froneman, could you perhaps go slightly slower, both for the interpreters and for us who are taking notes here.

MR FRONEMAN: I beg your pardon, Your Honour, I will slow down.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You say the BWB called it the James Bond Bible?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So more members of the BWB had access to such a book that just the two of you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I saw this book at a meeting, I don't know whose book it was.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And then did you carry out Mr Harmse's instructions and yourself manufacture hand grenades?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did so.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And later on when Mr Harmse left hospital, was released from hospital, what did you do at that stage?

MR FRONEMAN: Well, I was at Mr Harmse's house and he told me that he had received instruction and I received instruction to help him carry out his instructions.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Well, what did you do?

MR FRONEMAN: He told me that when I returned home on 16 September I had to obtain false number plates and then three o'clock the next morning I had to join him at his house.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse testified that he had instructed you to go and look for a target, select a target.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR FRONEMAN: I proposed to him then that this particular Indian trade centre had to be attacked because I believed that at that stage the Muslim community in particular were the majority ANC supporters and he agreed with me that we go and attack that particular centre.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you do then, did you go and select a target?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did. I told him that the ideal spot would be the Indian trade centre.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you know the business centre?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In Bronkhorstspruit.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: According to you, the next morning at three o'clock on the 18th of September 1993, you went to his house, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: It is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What then happened there?

MR FRONEMAN: I went home quite quickly that evening and because of that I was not able to obtain the number plates as he had given me instructions, I then went to his house, he was already waiting for me. We packed the bomb into the car and I had to hold it because it was unstable.

We drove to the police barracks and removed two number plates from the police bus, we got into the car and drove to Bronkhorstspruit.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you help in constructing the bomb?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was your task?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse gave me the instruction to put

together the electrical component of the bomb.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is that in terms of the training which he had previously given you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Upon arrival, on your arrival at Bronkhorstspruit what happened?

MR FRONEMAN: We stopped just outside of Bronkhorstspruit and attached the number plates to the vehicle, we drove through Bronkhorstspruit. We drove passed the business centre to see whether there were any people around, there were no people around so we drove passed and planted the bomb.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You may go on.

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse left the car ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: There will be an attempt to regulate the speed of testimony. It appears that the witness is somewhat nervous, but we will slow down somewhat.

MR FRONEMAN: We parked in front of the shopping centre. Mr Harmse got out of the car, we placed the bomb on the stoep, or the front verandah of the shopping centre. I noticed that Mr Harmse was having trouble with the arming of the bomb. I approached him again. He told me to leave the bomb alone, but I then said to him that it would be of no use if we just left the bomb there without it detonating.

After some additional difficulties we armed the bomb and left.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you do once you had returned to Cullinan?

MR FRONEMAN: On our way back to Cullinan, we removed the number plates from the vehicle. We were cleaning the number plates and then damaged one of the number plates, which we

threw out of the window. We returned to the police barracks where the remaining number plate was attached to the police bus again.

Mr Harmse left me at the police barracks and I went home from there.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You mentioned that you cleaned the number plates, was this to remove the finger prints?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, it was with a view to remove the finger prints.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The next day, on the Sunday, did you return to Mr Harmse's home?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, I went to his house.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse has given testimony that on that Saturday he had been to a meeting at Mr Ford's home, you did not go along did you?

MR FRONEMAN: No.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During the Sunday, did he have any conversation with you, that is Mr Harmse?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, he approached me and handed the BWB, Boer Resistance Movement wings, he congratulated me for our achievement on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement and I was then handed the wings.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was the purpose with regard to handing over the wings on that day?

MR FRONEMAN: These wings imply that I was selected to be a full member of the Boer Republican Army.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Why then on the day immediately after the bombing?

MR FRONEMAN: To become a member of the Boer Republican Army, you had to carry out a special order which would indicate your level of commitment.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It appears quite clearly from your testimony, that you acted under instructions from Mr Harmse, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In carrying out this instruction or these instructions, did you do this simply to please Mr Harmse or did you carry out the deed to promote the goals of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: Having looked at the situation in South Africa and where things were going, I acted in this manner on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Was there any personal gain on your part from this act?

MR FRONEMAN: No.

MRS VAN DER WALT: How did you feel when you realised that someone had died?

MR FRONEMAN: I was shocked. It was not my intention to go and kill someone and it touched me deeply, especially when I realised that I had killed an innocent person and that I have robbed a wife of her husband and the children of their father.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, when one plants a bomb in a town in a business area, surely one must keep in mind that people might die?

MR FRONEMAN: In any war people come in the cross fire and they do die.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During the court case you also pleaded guilty to culpable homicide and several other charges of possession of explosions and so forth. You were also heard in the regional court, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is the length of your sentence?

MR FRONEMAN: 16 years, which was reduced to 9 years and this was on the 25th of April 1994, in which judgement was given.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So you've been in prison for three years, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During your court case a Dr Labuschagne, a criminologist brought testimony on your behalf, can you remember this?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I can.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I note in that part of the court documents that is available on page 13, Dr Labuschagne mentions that you did not really have political insight, but now you are appearing before this Honourable Committee and you want to claim, or you want to express your feelings with regard to these two Organisations. I want to hear from you, if this Doctor speaks of politics, would it not be true that you are not interested in the politics as practised by a government, but what you understand with the term of politics, it has to do with that which touches you personally, your ethnic community, your people, your religion and your language, is that what you understand under politics?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is what I understand under politics.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You are not however, interested in the broader politics?

MR FRONEMAN: No. As it says in one of the ... (tape ends) MRS VAN DER WALT: ... remain our property, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is how I understood it even though being at school.

MRS VAN DER WALT: On page 13 of your testimony the same Dr Labuschagne mentions and I will read to you from the 21st line "at all the meetings of the Boer Resistance Movement, where he was allowed, there was considerable war talk and talk of taking up arms and of the time having arrived. This kind of talk never gave him the impression that people were to be killed".

ADV DE JAGER: My apologies, you are referring to page 13 as typed at the top of the page, is that correct. That would be paged at page 14 in the bundle?

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct, we have the documents, but our documents are not bound, so I must apologise that I referred to this in such a weak way, but this is the typed document and on page 13 thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: You have just referred to about line 20, or between lines 20 and 30 of the typed page 13, and the indexed page 14, is that correct?

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct. If one looks at this piece of testimony, it would appear as if there are some contradictions, two contradictions. Did you say to her that the Boer Resistance Movement stood on stage and said we don't want to kill people?

MR FRONEMAN: No, the Boer Resistance Movement did not say this, they declared war. I had no personal inclination to kill people, but the Boer Resistance Movement had declared war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What you actually meant when you said this to her was the Boer Resistance Movement said that there was going to be war, but personally you did not feel that

you want necessarily to kill people?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it not true Mr Froneman, that in war people die?

MR FRONEMAN: I realise now, that in - yes people die in war, yes people die in cross fire.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I would like to refer you to Appendix B, that is also Exhibit B, on page 11 of the bundle. Do you have it there in front of you? In paragraph 1 you indicated the main purpose or goal of the Boer Resistance Movement. There is an additional document, Exhibit C, in the bundle this would be on page 22 - have you previously seen the programme of principles of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I have seen it before.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it from this programme, that you withdrew the main goal of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You explain the principles of the Boer Resistance Movement in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 up and including paragraph 11. I want to take you to question 10(b), which would be on page 4.

You explain in that paragraph that during 1960, the PAC and the ANC were banned Organisations. This was long before your birth. Did you have knowledge of this?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just assist us again. You are referring to ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: We are referring to Exhibit B, which has reference also to Mr Froneman.

MS KHAMPEPE: That would be page 15 of the original bundle, the paginated number.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It would be page 14. Is it (b). This would be Annexure B, also Exhibit B. Mr Prinsloo handed this in on behalf of Mr Harmse and this morning I also handed an Exhibit B to you.

INTERPRETER: Adv de Jager, is not using the microphone.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Annexure B.

ADV DE JAGER: In our bundle, in the bound set, I think we are talking passed each other with the annexures. What does the document look like, what is the title?

MRS VAN DER WALT: Exhibit B, Annexure B. This is ...

ADV DE JAGER: The document with regard to question 10(a), it seems to be understood which document is referred to.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It continues 10(b) on typed page 4. You have made reference in your answer to question 10(b), to the time when the ANC was banned, but at that time you had not yet been born, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have knowledge of the ANC having become a banned Organisation in earlier years?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is so.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Where did you obtain this knowledge, from AWB meetings?

MR FRONEMAN: No, this is from the news media. The National Party had banned them because of their terrorism.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You also had knowledge of their unbanning when they became legal Organisations, and what then happened?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you also have knowledge through the media and from the Organisations to which you belonged, that the expatriate members of these Organisations had returned

to the country?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did they do when they returned to the country?

MR FRONEMAN: They had been trained outside of the country, in countries like Russia, they were provided with arms and they returned secretly to our country. There were training camps in Angola and places like that and they used guerrilla tactics, tactics of guerrilla warfare to advance their goals.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The then government, the National Party government, you have spoken of some things which you heard from the news media, when the National Party was still the government, what did they say to you ordinary people in the street, what the ANC onslaught was like, whether it was a serious or a less serious onslaught?

MR FRONEMAN: The government of the time considered that to be a declaration of war against this country and that government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You confirm therefore the content of Exhibit B, Annexure B with regard to the answers on questions 10(a) or (b). In your original application, you had also said that you acted on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, as a young man - as it also appears from the statement of Dr Labuschagne you had a very high view of the Boer Republican Army and you wanted to be a soldier, you wanted to fight and be in war, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: This inspired you to join these two

Organisations, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Nonetheless, you are still a very young man, a very very young man. How would you at this time feel about the Volkstaat, have you abandoned the notion of a Volkstaat, what are your feelings?

MR FRONEMAN: I do not think I would ever abandon the notion of the Volkstaat, I have strong feelings for the Volkstaat. I have been raised to believe that we should be governed by our own people.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The most important thing I want to ask you, I have sketched for you how badly you wanted to join, how badly you wanted to be at war, how now, how at this time, do you believe should this Volkstaat be attained?

MR FRONEMAN: Making war is not right, it cannot be done. What we did was merely a drop in the ocean, it was of no value, but my means of negotiations and possibly by showing government that there is a real need for a Volkstaat, we may well one day achieve this ideal.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, on the Sunday immediately after the incident, you went to a church service, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: After the church service, you went to speak to a minister of religion.

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you say to him?

MR FRONEMAN: I went to the minister of religion, I was crying terribly and I asked him to help me because my life was in a real mess.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You did not tell him what you did, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I did not tell him.

MRS VAN DER WALT: However, you did feel the need to speak to him, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you feel real remorse at that time?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I felt considerable remorse and still today I feel great remorse particularly with regard to the man's wife and children. It was not right what I did to them.

Also with regard to the Indian community, I did not have the right to damage their property.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any grudge against the persons involved, Mr Mayet and the other persons damaged?

MR FRONEMAN: I did not know these people personally, I had no grudge against them.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In the court case, you made the case on the same basis as you are doing today. You said at that time that you acted under the instructions of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The same State Attorney which dealt with the case of Mr Harmse much later, also acted on your behalf is that correct? How did he handle the case in court?

MR FRONEMAN: He presented the case to court and that the motive was political, it was a political motive.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You are therefore asking this Honourable Committee to grant you amnesty with regard to the charges on which you have been found guilty, the culpable homicide and other, is that the case?

MR FRONEMAN: That is the case.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MRS VAN DER WALT.

JUDGE WILSON: Any further witness you intend to call?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, I am not quite sure what the arrangement is which is being arrived at between council. Do we start with cross-examination of this applicant or do we revert to Mr Harmse?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I think Mr Black has got a certain way. He said he is going to ask them together, I am not sure.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black?

MR BLACK: For record purposes, perhaps as a matter of convenience we could commence with Mr Froneman and then clarify issues with Mr Harmse.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you have any objections to that?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: No objection, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Froneman, what I don't find entirely clear, at the time this act was committed who was the enemy as it were. War had been declared as far as you were concerned and who did you regard to be the enemy?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, the enemy at that time was the government which wanted to hand our country over to the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR BLACK: But you testified that you selected the target and you chose a commercial shopping complex in the Indian, situated I presume in the Indian community -

Bronkhorstspruit? Why did you choose that target, it is not a government building and there are not government officials who occupy that building, I assume?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, yes, we did also act

against he ANC, or we did fight against the ANC and other forces who were against our faith and so forth, and that is why I selected the Indian shopping complex. Since the Muslim community were - I would say that the Muslim community at that time were majority of ANC supporters. Or a majority of the members of the Indian community were ANC supporters.

MR BLACK: I just want to expand a little bit on that. In selecting the target, did you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the people who occupied that complex were either Muslim or ANC supporters or possibly supporters of the government of the day?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, no, I did not have such personal knowledge but in my view, most Indians were Muslims. The Indian community in general in my view, were Muslims.

MR BLACK: What did you hope to achieve by assisting with the planting of the bomb at that complex?

MR FRONEMAN: We wanted to show the government and other enemy forces that we were intent on taking back our country by armed force, with violence if they did not want to give our original republics back to us.

MR BLACK: But what I am trying to get at is, why plant a bomb at a commercial shopping complex? What did you think was going to happen?

MR FRONEMAN: It was my impression that we would damage the buildings, and having damaged the buildings that we would show that we are continuing with the war.

MR BLACK: Did you at the time have knowledge of what Mr Harmse has informed the Committee that a bomb, that bomb

which was manufactured, it could be detonated or could

explode should somebody shake it or move it or if a heavy vehicle had to drive past? Did you know that that bomb could have just gone off in that manner or with that type of disturbance?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, Honourable Chairman, and that is why I held the bomb while we were driving to Bronkhorstspruit, since it was so highly unstable.

MR BLACK: So you knew that if any person or body had to touch or disturb the bomb sufficiently, it could be exploded, it wasn't a controlled detonation, it would have to be disturbed by somebody or some movement, is that so?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: Did you think or consider rather, that people would be opening the shop and would be coming to that complex in the morning?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, at that time I was still very young. I was given instructions and as we were told by the Boer Resistance Movement, if you get an instruction as a troop, then you were not supposed to argue with the officer who had given you the instruction, you just had to carry out the instruction.

MR BLACK: But, then what were your instructions?

MR FRONEMAN: The instruction which I had received was to assist Mr Harmse in carrying out his orders.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black would there be any difference between this bomb and say a landmine planted in a farm road?

MR BLACK: With respect, no, there is no difference in that sense. The difference between a controlled explosion or a non-controlled explosion and a landmine would be similar to this type of bomb which could injure people

indiscriminately. Perhaps I could just make it quite clear, I understand from your evidence that although a war had been declared in your mind, you didn't want to kill anybody, is that what you are saying? Or you didn't think people would be killed?

MR FRONEMAN: At that time I had not thought of this, no, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: But had you been ordered to insure that somebody got killed, you would carry out those orders?

MR FRONEMAN: I would have had to carry it out, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: Did you think, consider, selecting a government building or a semi-government building as one of the targets?

MR FRONEMAN: No Honourable Chairman, we did not in particular consider a government building.

MR BLACK: But the government was your enemy?

MR FRONEMAN: The government was our enemy yes. But our most serious enemy at that time was the emerging parties who would have eventually oppressed us were they to become the government.

MR BLACK: So, I just want to sum up correctly, this was a building occupied by civilians, a bomb was - which was selected by yourselves, the building was selected by yourself only because you thought that it was perhaps occupied or frequented by and owned by an Indian community who you thought may well be Muslim? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: I was under the impression that the Muslim community were great supporters of the ANC. I also believed that the Indian community were Muslims.

MS KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Froneman, did you know the

political affiliation of the Indians who were conducting

business in that shopping centre?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I did not particularly know their political views.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, how do you then reconcile that with the fact that you had to select a target and associate it with the ANC which posed a threat to your political ideals? Why choose a target which, in your evidence, has no association at all to your political opponent?

JUDGE WILSON: Before you answer that question, I would like to ask my co-committee member whether that is a fair question when you said you believed Indians were Muslims and Muslims were keen supporters of the ANC? You cannot therefor say there was no connection with your political opponent, can you?

MS KHAMPEPE: But you do know that the Indian community consist of both Muslims and Hindus? There are quite a number of faiths within the Indian community and your interest was in targeting the Muslim faith and not the other faiths within the Indian community?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, I don't understand what the question is. What is the question?

MS KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, a large percentage of the Muslim community belong to the ANC and that was the reason why you selected that particular shopping centre, because you believed that the majority of the people who were conducting business in that shopping centre, were Muslims.

MR FRONEMAN: That is what I believed, yes, Honourable Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you know that within the Indian community there were also other faiths, other than the Muslim faith?

MR FRONEMAN: There are other faiths other than Muslims

such as Hindus, but also of them - many of them are in the top structures of the ANC.

MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, it wasn't necessarily the Muslim faith?

MR FRONEMAN: How can I say this, it wasn't the faith as such that we wanted to oppose, to a small measure, yes, since if they were to become the government they would privilege their religion over our religion, but that is what I believed at that time.

MS KHAMPEPE: So your intention in selecting that particular target, was to launch and direct your launch of that attack against the ANC? Why did you have to choose this particular centre? Were there no other centres that you could have selected next to Cullinan?

MR FRONEMAN: We did not have a particular instruction to attack these shops, but it was my view that it was a good target.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to ask you Mr Froneman, was this not a racially motivated attack, purely on race against the Indian community as such?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, as I have given testimony earlier, the Boer Resistance Movement wants to grant all races their own self rule, just as we wanted ourselves have that granted.

MR BLACK: And just a last question Mr Froneman, perhaps it might be two. I gathered from your evidence which was led, that you were friendly with Mr Harmse's daughter at the time, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, that is correct.

MR BLACK: Was this action on your part not committed to simply to please Mr Harmse and to win his favour? Sorry,

not only with his daughter, I didn't want to - but you were

friendly with the Harmse family, let's put it that way.

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, it is correct, I was a friend of the family, but even before I in any way met his daughter or got to know her, I already joined the AWB and I had these political convictions.

MR BLACK: Yes, but to carry out this act, this particular act, was that not done for the sake of pleasing Mr Harmse? ... (tape ends)

MR FRONEMAN: ... clearly that our Volk, our ethnic community, were involved in a struggle against enemy forces, that we had to take up arms to take back that which properly belongs to us.

MR BLACK: Be absolutely clear, or perhaps Mr Harmse could give us more clarity on it, but in your mind, the enemy forces were the government, the ANC alliance. Any other groups or persons you could add to that?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, our enemies were those people, any organisation or party who did not want to grant us the right to self rule or self government.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you, that makes it a bit clearer. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Froneman, were there any shopping centres next to Cullinan that were owned by the Indian community?

MR FRONEMAN: Not to my knowledge, Honourable Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you make any enquiries in that regard?

MR FRONEMAN: I had no time to make extensive enquiries with regard to a particular target. On that day I was given instruction to assist, I had to make a quick decision with regard to a target to attack.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did Mr Harmse indicate to you but you had to

select a target by a particular period? Did he indicate any

urgency in the selection of such a target?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse told me that he had already received the materials for preparing the bomb, that he had been given the instructions to go and plant a bomb and I understood by this, that this had to be done immediately.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you want to re-examine now, or do you want to rather wait till after Mr Harmse has finished his evidence?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I'll wait till after Mr Harmse is finished.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, we will take the adjournment at this stage until two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK - ON RESUMPTION:

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, are you ready to continue?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse, a similar question which I put to Mr Froneman is who did you regard to be the enemy in this war which was allegedly declared?

MR HARMSE: The enemy at that stage Mr Chairman, was the then government, the ANC/SACP alliance as well as the money powers.

MR BLACK: Sorry, what do you mean by the money powers?

MR HARMSE: The money powers in government circles, rule government and say what should be done and what should not be done.

MR BLACK: Could you just be a bit more specific about that.

MR HARMSE: The big financial powers with all that they own, if we should try and get along without them, like De Beers and Anglo American, that type of Institution, the

government listens to what they are saying and if they tell the government to do something, then it happens normally.

MR BLACK: Are you suggesting that any people associated with those Organisations that you've mentioned, that is the government, the ANC alliance and these large financial institutions such as Anglo American etc, they would constitute legitimate targets as far as you were concerned?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Now, you instructed Mr Froneman, I understand, to select a target after you had received a telephone message from an anonymous party that the war had started?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Did you give Mr Froneman any instructions as to the nature of the target he must select?

MR HARMSE: Yes, at that stage after Mr de Klerk had announced that all religions are the same or would be the same, and I knew for a fact that Muslims had held high positions in the ANC, and that the financial powers played a large role, I instructed him to go to an Indian community as such.

MR BLACK: Did you tell him the nature of the target he must select or give him guidance on the nature of the target he should select?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I told him to go for the Muslims because if we took them on, we could achieve, and better achieve our aims to the government.

INTERPRETER: That was not clearly stated.

MR BLACK: Did you give him, when I am saying guidance, as to what type of target or the nature of the target he should select or look out for?

MR HARMSE: Not specifically, no.

MR BLACK: When you said to him we must go for the Muslims, what did you mean by that?

MR HARMSE: I told him that because when the government, once it has been handed over to the ANC/SACP alliance, I knew there would be many Muslims in the high structures. Then our religion would be totally taken over by the fact that they took over and we would have no religion whatsoever.

MR BLACK: Yes, but what I am getting at is what did you mean by going for the Muslims? Must they be targeted as enemies?

MR HARMSE: At that stage, yes, because Indians are Muslims.

MR BLACK: And this was after war had been declared?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, yes.

MR BLACK: And therefore did you realise that by instructing a person to go for the Muslims, Muslims would be killed?

MR HARMSE: We did plant the bomb in such a manner that people would, or could be killed if it went off, yes.

MR BLACK: So when you planted that bomb, you knew full well that there was a real possibility if not a probability that ordinary bypassers or civilians could be killed, irrespective - whoever it was?

MR HARMSE: At that stage I did know that, I knew that people could be killed because in a war innocent people could always be killed in the cross fire.

MR BLACK: But I put it to you that you deliberately wanted to kill Muslims as it were, by planting that bomb.

MR HARMSE: As I've already stated, we planted the bomb amongst the Muslims because many of them were in high structures in the ANC, they held high positions.

MR BLACK: What I am trying to get at is, you see it relates

to the gravity of this offence. And what I am getting at is when you planted the bomb of that nature, you intended to kill Muslims. It wasn't that they may or may not, it was your intention actually to kill them.

MR HARMSE: That is correct, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You pleaded guilty to murder and murder is the killing of a person with the intent to kill him.

MR BLACK: So, I just want to understand your evidence then. When you were asked about the nature of the bomb, the sensitivity of it etc, you replied at one stage that you did not know who could have, would have been able to set off the device and you thought it would go off when the shops were unlocked in the morning.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: As far as Mr Froneman was concerned, was he aware of the seriousness of this issue, did you discuss it with him that people were going to be killed, Muslims were going to be killed?

MR HARMSE: Mr Froneman was completely au fait with the fact that people would die.

MR BLACK: Your instructions, am I fair in understanding that you were told at a meeting that you would receive an order to the effect that was has been declared? You would receive an instruction that war has been declared, that instruction would come either by person, personally delivered to you or telephonically? Is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You carried out this act after you had received an instruction that war had been declared?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Am I also correct that you were given carte

blanche as it were, as to how to carry out or to give effect, you were given no specific orders how to carry out or conduct this war?

MR HARMSE: At these meetings we were told to use our initiative and select and identify our own targets in order to promote the BWB's case.

MR BLACK: How much time did you give Mr Froneman to select a target?

MR HARMSE: I think it was approximately a day or two that he had to look for a target and come back to me with a specific target.

JUDGE WILSON: What day was it that you actually put the bomb there?

MR HARMSE: It was the Saturday at four o'clock the morning.

JUDGE WILSON: So it would have been the Friday, perhaps the Thursday that he could look for a target?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: You were satisfied with the target that was selected, you had to approve of it?

MR HARMSE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was satisfied with the target.

MR BLACK: You had satisfied yourself that Mr Froneman would also, was fully aware of the consequences as to what would occur if a bomb of that nature was placed at that target, you satisfied yourself with that as his Commanding Officer?

MR HARMSE: I knew that great damage would occur and that people would die and I believed Mr Froneman also realised this.

MR BLACK: I know it has been asked, but again, could you just - what was the objective, the political objective you

hoped to achieve by placing a bomb of this nature at a civilian target?

MR HARMSE: The reason was to show the then government that negotiations were not going to help us in achieving our free ethnic state, Volkstaat and also that our religion was very important to us.

MR BLACK: So it was primarily aimed at making a statement as it were, to the government?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Then surely a bomb over a weekend or whenever this took place, placed at a government building causing considerable damages, I am sure this bomb could cause, would that not have been a more appropriate target, a government institution which would not be frequented or be used by civilians over a weekend?

MR HARMSE: After the target had been identified, we were satisfied with it and we did not even think of another government institution where we could have placed the bomb.

MR BLACK: But did you make attempts, did you enquire where - what steps did you take to - did you consider attacking or planting a bomb at a government institution which wouldn't be so densely occupied?

MR HARMSE: Well, after the target had been identified, Mr Chairman, we didn't even think of looking for another target or going to another target, because at that stage this target would best convey our message to the government.

MR BLACK: Okay, so when identifying this target, did you

make enquiries as to what other targets had been considered before settling on this particular target?

MR HARMSE: We did consider other targets, but they were not considered further because this target was regarded as

the best target to convey our message to the government.

MR BLACK: The other targets which you considered, did they include government buildings and institutions?

MR HARMSE: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: So were you just considering civilian targets?

MR HARMSE: Not specifically civilian targets, but a target that could convey a true message.

MR BLACK: Can you just inform us as to what was some of the other targets which you considered, which were not - other than civilians targets?

MR HARMSE: Targets that were specifically against our religion Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: But what are they? What other targets did you consider before saying I will plant a bomb which is highly sensitive, uncontrolled bomb, in a densely well frequented commercial shopping complex?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, we also considered targets in Pretoria, but we in die end ignored them.

MR BLACK: When you say we, who are you talking about?

MR HARMSE: It was myself and Mr Froneman after he had identified the target which we had together accepted would be the best.

MR BLACK: Again I must ask you, can you - what targets did you consider? Give us an example of the nature of the targets in Pretoria that you considered.

MR HARMSE: It was also specifically where Muslims mostly would meet.

MR BLACK: So again it was aimed specifically at Muslims?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: And again aimed specifically with a view, with the knowledge rather, that Muslims would be killed?

MR HARMSE: It could have been so Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: Now, you have testified that subsequent to this act of yours, your actions were approved of by the AWB?

JUDGE WILSON: He didn't say the AWB, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: After this matter, after this incident, did you say you received promotion to that of a General?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: Now, who approved of this action, were you congratulated on your actions?

MR HARMSE: No, Mr Chairman I was not directly congratulated with planting the bomb, but at the meeting I was told that I would become a General from that date.

MR BLACK: And this was a meeting of - was this the meeting of the ..., which meeting was this?

MR HARMSE: That Mr Chairman, was a meeting of the Boere Resistance Movement.

MR BLACK: So did any one in the AWB or the Boere Resistance Movement condemn your actions?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, as far as I know nobody had any negative comments on the deed.

MR BLACK: Do you consider that this bombing of civilians in any way whatsoever, contributed towards achieving your political objectives?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I believe that with this deed that I had committed, it could perhaps have the former government think second thoughts before handing over to the SACP/ANC alliance.

MR BLACK: Because at that stage CODESA had already commenced, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: And looking back, did anyone at any stage come to

you and say listen this has been effective, it has had some effect on the negotiations?

MR HARMSE: No Mr Chairman, nobody came to me with such a proposal.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't have any further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse, a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact, or on the question of why you didn't attack ...

JUDGE WILSON: This is re-examination, isn't it? You haven't had an opportunity to question ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: Oh, yes, that is right, I am sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you wish to put further questions to him?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I would like to.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, you have leave to do so. You have no objection I take it.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have no objection Mr Chairman.

MRS VAN DER WALT: A lot of emphasis was placed on the question of why you didn't attack a government institution, but if I listen to your testimony and I would like you to correct me if I am wrong, you throughout said that the enemy was the government and the ANC/SACP alliance, is that your testimony?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that was correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And then you replied that the target which you had selected, you regarded that to be a target that would convey the correct message. The message which had to be conveyed, to whom would that be conveyed?

MR HARMSE: It would be to the then government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: To the government, okay, so then you

continue and you said that the government would hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. When according to you, would this hand over take place?

MR HARMSE: That would take place in April 1994 with the elections.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So what you are saying, or do you say then that this message or deed was committed in order to prevent the country from being handed over at the elections?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It was furthermore asked whether anybody had congratulated you in that case. Would you had become a General if you hadn't committed this act?

MR HARMSE: No, I would definitely not have become a General at that stage.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MRS VAN DER WALT.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have no re-examination of Harmse, Mr Chairman, I have one question directed at Froneman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Froneman, if I understand your testimony correctly, you gave testimony that the target which was Muslim people and which would have involved your own religion should the ANC have taken over, because of the considerable Muslim support for the ANC,is that how you believed this? Did you believe that your faith would be threatened by the take over of the ANC in lieu of the strong Muslim support?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I believed that at that time, since while I was still at school they removed religious instruction from schooling as a school subject.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO.

JUDGE WILSON: Re-examination?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT.

JUDGE WILSON: I can't remember whether I asked you if you had any further witnesses you wish to call?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No further witnesses.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further witnesses Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Harmse, you were a voluntary organisation. In a voluntary movement, there is no need for one to follow orders, is that not the case?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, this was a movement which one joined voluntarily, nonetheless it was in a certain manner a military movement. We wore uniforms, there was discipline and if one was given a command, you had to carry it out

ADV DE JAGER: What would have happened to Mr Froneman if he defied an order?

MR HARMSE: Then one could be thrown out of the movement and he could be suspended and to be suspended from a movement like this, would mean that for a Boer that there would be no further possibility for one to show your face in front of another Boer, it would have been a great shame.

ADV DE JAGER: What would you have done had Mr Froneman not listened to your instruction?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, at that time I would have suspended him ... (tape ends)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Froneman, what would have happened to you had you ignored this or defied the orders?

MR FRONEMAN: On several occasions in the Boer Resistance Movement, they spoke of a six pack, then you would have been defined or classified as a traitor, if you defied orders,

then you would have sold out your people. You would have been a traitor to your people. You would then have appeared before a court martial order who could have given you this six pack, namely they would shoot you through the knees.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you hear this?

MR FRONEMAN: This was at a meeting of the Organisation.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Harmse, did you really believe that the majority of the Muslim community were members of the ANC?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Until now in government, there are high positions filled by Indians who are Muslims and at that time they were also highly regarded in the ANC/SACP alliance.

MS KHAMPEPE: At that time, on what grounds was your believe based?

MR HARMSE: At that time it was my faith, my conviction that for my God, my people and my country.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what was the basis of your believe that the majority of the Muslim community were members of the ANC?

MR HARMSE: I believed this since most Indians are Muslims. At that time many of them held senior positions in the ANC and the SACP.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did your Organisation at any stage during that period conduct any survey to determine whether the people who were holding such key positions within the ANC and were of Indian origin, whether those people were in fact of the Muslim faith?

MR HARMSE: The Boer Resistance Movement at that time told me that most Muslims ...

INTERPRETER: It appears that the witness is saying that most Indians are Muslims, that most of the people with high

positions are Muslims.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now you launched this attack pursuant to the decision which was taken at the Rustenburg meeting and at that meeting you were told that you were to select your own targets, but you were nevertheless advised that in the selection of your targets, you were to ensure that the objectives of the BWB were advanced?

MR HARMSE: That is the case. We were instructed to carefully identify our own targets with the intention of meeting the goals of the BWB, and that is why we selected this target.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you not select a target immediately after that Rustenburg meeting, why did you have to wait until the telephone call which you received around the 17th of September?

MR HARMSE: We wanted to wait before selecting a target since we had not yet received instructions to continue with the war. Only once I received the telephonic instruction to continue since the war had started, that we identified the target and continued with our actions.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, I would imagine that you took those instructions seriously of selecting a target that would enable the objectives of your movement to be advances. What qualified Mr Froneman to be able to select such a target?

MR HARMSE: I gave Mr Froneman the instruction to select the target since we worked in cells as I had already mentioned. He was immediately under my command and it was his duty to identify the target.

MS KHAMPEPE: Could you not have selected the target yourself?

MR HARMSE: At that time I had just come out of hospital, I had neck trouble and I was not able to drive around on my own to look for a target, that is why I gave this instruction to Mr Froneman.

MS KHAMPEPE: And if I understand your testimony earlier on, you actually gave Mr Froneman directives on what kind of a target he was to identify, am I correct in so concluding?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, you may return.

WITNESSES EXCUSED.

JUDGE WILSON: Does that conclude the evidence you propose leading?

ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence that I intend to lead.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The same with me.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black.

MR BLACK: No evidence will be lead by ourselves, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you ready to address us? I trust that this would be recorded.

ADV PRINSLOO ADDRESSES THE COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the testimony of the applicant Mr Harmse, is supported by that of the second applicant Mr Froneman. The requirements in the Act which must be met is that there must be full disclosure and I want to argue with respect, that with regard to Mr Harmse, this requirement has been met entirely.

There has not been any suggestion from the side of Mr Black that there is any lack of disclosure. There is no evidence to the contrary either. To determine whether the act in fact meets the requirements that this was in fact an

act linked to a political motive and this is the crime

committed by the applicant, I want to argue with respect that this application also meets this particular requirement.

The applicant was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement, he acted on behalf of and under the instructions of the BWB and the purpose of his act was aimed against the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance in his words.

The target determined by the applicant, he has given testimony, was one linked to members of the Muslim community which in his view and in the view of the BWB, were members of the ANC, members and supporters of the ANC.

He believed that by placing a bomb at this particular target, this would bring the then government to other views, would convince the then government and would also the persons directly involved, the ANC/SACP alliance.

He believed, and he has been brought under cross-examination by my learned colleague, Mr Black that by placing a bomb at such a property of the Muslim community, this would make a difference with the then government as well as the great financial powers.

I want to argue there was no racial hatred, no personal gain, that this was a political motive which was in the mind of the applicant and which he wanted to achieve.

Furthermore his actions prior to and subsequent to the act, supports this argument. The testimony as in Annexures A and B as well as in the verbal testimony, as well as the principles held by the Boer Resistance Movement, as well as those in his plea to the court and that is Exhibit D and in particular paragraph 4.7 which reads "I decided that as an

Afrikaner it was my duty to defend my country against

communism and Black domination. I decided to use a home made explosive device and to explode it in an area which would create tremendous publicity for the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner cause. At a later point an area was identified by myself, namely the Indian business centre in Bronkhorstspruit. The purpose was through the damage done there, to indicate to the government that it was the aspiration of the Afrikaner to be free of Black and communist domination."

This was the argument of the applicant at his court case and in his application today, he stands by this claim.

In the charge against the applicant, it was also indicated that this was an act with a political motive and we want to argue with respect that at no point during his hearing, court hearing nor at any time, there is any reason to believe that this act was not committed with a political motive.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo could you explain to us to what extend religion plays a role in the political views of the Afrikaner?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect religion plays the key and core role amongst Afrikaners. If you look at Exhibit C you will see in the first paragraph what role religion plays amongst the Afrikaner.

The religion of the Afrikaner, as given testimony by both Froneman and Harmse, both witnesses, would be taken away from them, it was their believe that were there to be an ANC/SACP alliance government and if the Muslim faith would then take preeminence, that then they would by oppressed and that the faith of the Afrikaner would be lost.

With respect it would appear that the faith of the Afrikaner was very strongly held and it was embodied in the previous constitution. The churches attended in the past by the Afrikaner and the religious practice in general on every level of the Afrikaner, would have been diminished or affected and the aspirations of the Afrikaner, affected in this way.

I want to argue before this Committee with respect, that in terms of Section 20(2) that the applicant does in fact meet the requirements, particularly paragraphs (a). He was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement or BWB. This was a widely known political Organisation. He acted on behalf of this political Organisation and he acted in good faith in the struggle, the political struggle which he believed had existed.

And then particularly with respect Mr Chairman, the applicant meets the requirement of paragraph (d), that this generally widely known political Organisation and that it was within the course of his duties and a very express duty in this particular case, that it was aimed particularly against a particular Organisation, in this case the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance.

With regard to subparagraph (3), the motive has been indicated very clearly by the witness as well as the second applicant. The context within which the act occurred, I want to argue with respect that at that time the election was very close. There was great uncertainty in the country and it was clear in the view of these persons that there would be a majority government in due course.

The purpose or goal of the act in particular, I want to argue with respect that the witness had indicated very

clearly that what the purpose and reason for the act had been.

Paragraph (e) this was an act which was carried out with instructions, very clearly under instructions and on behalf of the BWB, or Boere Resistance Movement. There is no doubt with regard to the membership, nor is this being argued against by Mr Black.

With regard to the link between the act as in paragraph (f), the goal to be attained and the proportionality, I want to argue with respect that the applicant took the proportionality into account in view of his goal and in his plea, Exhibit D, this was also clearly argued.

Under these circumstances, I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that the applicant meets all the requirements of the Act and that amnesty should be granted to him for the acts with regard to which he appeared before the Supreme court. I thank you Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: The current speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: The relative proportionality of the goal and the act, do you believe that there is proportionality?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that which the applicant wanted to achieve, that which the Organisation wanted to achieve, the act and the goal must be linked in terms of the motive.

The motive was to change the mind of the then government, to commit an act which would gain the attention of government and of the ANC/SACP and those persons involved with these institutions, organisations. It is a direct link between the motive.

This was on the eve of the elections, the elections were to be in April 1994, the act occurred in September 1993, the CODESA negotiations were under way and in that

context, as testified by the applicant, the placing of the bomb, would have had the required effect.

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand the use of explosives and the public nature of the place would have gained some attention, that there was a link with the political situation, explosives were seldom used by common criminals. It was most often used in political contexts at that time, however, the killing of an innocent civilian who would not have a political profile, how do we link such a killing with a political struggle?

ADV PRINSLOO: I want with respect, to argue to you Your Honour, that this bomb was placed at four o'clock in the morning, at a place used by people of a particular community in this case the Muslim community and that under these circumstances, it is not extraordinary to imagine that a person of that community would use this shop, enter the shop, unlock the shop and that in fact, that person would then be in the cross fire.

With respect Your Honour, as given in the testimony during the course of the case, an innocent person, a member of the police then acted because of a telephone call and the witness testified that there had not been anyone in the area when the bomb was placed, in fact an innocent person did die, but the testimony was that during a war situation, innocent persons may well come in the cross fire.

And I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that this manner of action has appeared in many cases involving the ANC, where the ANC was the accused party. That it had occurred that innocent persons were in the cross fire, very similar to this particular case as in the case of the Pretoria bomb, the Silverton bank bombing.

With farm cases as at Darville where a landmine was placed, where innocent persons died. Where this was probably aimed against the farming community in that area.

The extend of this act was within the limits and was proportional if compared to other acts under these circumstances.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, again on the question of proportionality. How could at attack on the Muslim community, how could it have dissuaded the government of the day from continuing with the negotiations with the political Organisations it was negotiating with?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chairman, it is clear that the use of bombs in explosions, that an explosion amongst the Muslim community in particular, that the majority of members of this community would have supported the ANC and the intention was that this would change the mind of the government. As it would indicate that many people disagreed with the route taken by the then government.

As stated in the documents presented by the applicant, this would create circumstances of chaos and circumstances would arise which would change the route. This would touch the ANC by touching the Muslim community, which in view of the applicant, were supporters of the ANC.

This was also the case when the ANC acted in many cases, the intention was to generate chaos, to bring about revolution, to take over the country, to force the country in fact to that which was achieved by the ANC.

And there were many persons, with respect, and many communities, who were attacked and who were killed or who were injured under these circumstances. With respect, the

government of that day, did in fact change their minds because of these acts of the ANC and handed over to the ANC, had an election. If we look for instance at the McBride case, and the Amanzimtoti bombing, as well as the Pretoria bomb, which was admittedly aimed against the Army, the Silverton incident, there was action against innocent bank staff, the Messina case where an innocent person, an ex-Minister of Kangwane was killed in cold blood, shot in cold blood, other innocent persons, as well as police who were assassinated and with respect, those acts in fact gained the goal.

Persons now in key positions of the ANC are Muslim people. It cannot be argued against, that this act was done in good faith in terms of the actual convictions of the applicant.

MRS VAN DER WALT ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION: Mr Chairman, I will not repeat what Mr Prinsloo said, I support his argument with regard to the requirements of the Act. I want to present to you that it is my argument that Mr Froneman does in fact meet the requirements of the Act as particularly mentioned in Section 22(a) and (d).

Your Honour, Mr Froneman was if I can say this with respect, he was a young boy when he committed this crime. However, he did not waste anyone's time. He has been in jail now for three years.

Immediately after his arrest, he appeared in court and he pleaded guilty and already at that time he said to the court why he committed this act.

Your Honour, there had been and you are in possession of the testimony of the criminologist. There are some aspects which differ from that which he presented to you

today in his testimony.

With respect I want to argue that at that time, he attempted to move away. You will note that he does not mention the names of the individuals. The idea, as he has given testimony that he does not want to be a traitor, he does not want people to consider him to be a traitor.

Adv de Jager asked Mr Prinsloo why - what the role of religion is amongst the Afrikaner. Mr Froneman in his application said that for him, there is only one God. With the statement of F.W. de Klerk that all religions will be considered equal, this created fear amongst Afrikaner people.

One has to pay attention particularly to the Boer Resistance Movement and what they said with regard to religion. Again Mr Froneman said that he left the AWB to join the BWB, particularly because they had a more pure position.

If you would grant me the opportunity I want to read to you the first three paragraphs of the programme of principles of the Boer Resistance Movement, and this is Exhibit C, Your Honour.

This Your Honour is the foundation. The very foundation of the Boer Resistance Movement is centred around their God. This one God whom they worshipped.

Then with regard to the purpose or goal of the movement.

With this in mind, the Boer Resistance Movement wants to hand over the heritage of freedom to our children.

Again, Your Honour, exactly that which was testified by Mr Froneman in his childlike simplicity, he understood these matters in this way when he attended the meetings of the BWB.

Here it is in black on white what the position of the Boer Resistance Movement in fact was.

Finally guidelines,

Your Honour, this is exactly what occurred with Mr Froneman when he joined Boer Resistance Movement. He has said to the Honourable Committee, that whilst still a school child, religious instruction was removed from the school curriculum.

He was told that it is necessary to fight for, to make war so that the ethnic state, the Volkstaat and the Boer people could remain free. And that this should be done with the Bible in the one hand and the rifle in the other. Then at meetings he is told that the ANC/SACP and the then

government is in fact the enemy.

It was also said at these meetings that Muslims have high positions in the ANC and that it is in fact the Muslim community, in particular, the Muslim community who should the ANC take over the government, that Muslims would have senior positions and this in fact occurred.

If we look at senior positions, many many of the senior positions are in fact held by Muslim Indians, except for Mr Naidoo who is a Hindu.

These fears in fact came true. The most serious fear in fact, the most serious fear of this young man was that he would lose his country and his religion.

He then carried out the goals of this movement as it was communicated to him. I want to hold to Your Honours that Mr Froneman does in fact meet the requirements, he act under the instructions of Mr Harmse.

Mr Harmse acted under the instructions of the Movement and I want to present to Your Honours that he has made totally clear what it was and there is no reason why he should not be granted amnesty for the act. ... (tape ends)

MR BLACK ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION: A great deal of evidence has been placed before the Committee, relating to the political education, indoctrination and motivation of the applicants.

The aims and objectives of the AWB and the BWB. Excepting which, should the Commission accept that the act for which the applicants seek amnesty were in deed motivated by reason of this indoctrination, and with a view to obtaining a political, or making a political statement, that is as far as I can say as opposed to obtaining an objective.

I respectfully submit that when one coldly analyses some details relating to the actions taken, the actions are in my submission grossly out of proportion to the objective sought by the applicants.

I say that for a number of reasons. Mr Harmse was not acting under orders as such to commit or to target a particular community. He was given carte blanche to use his discretion how to achieve the broad aims and objectives of his Organisation.

He appointed a young man of some 17 years to reconnoitre the area and with his, Harmse's, approval, a target in a fairly isolated part of South Africa, I say that with all due respect with Bronkhorstspruit, was selected.

They had in fact considered targets in Pretoria. Now at no stage did either Mr Harmse or Mr Froneman indicate that they even considered placing a bomb in a government building or government institution which would not be occupied by people at the time of the detonation.

We are told that after war had allegedly been declared by their Organisation, the enemy was government. The enemy was the ANC/SACP alliance. The enemy was at one stage the large, it included large financial corporations.

The names of the likes of Anglo American were mentioned. Now, my submission as to why the acts are out of all proportion to this objective are first of all the nature of the target which was selected, a easily accessible commercial centre which was to be frequented by ordinary civilians.

It was submitted by Mr Prinsloo for Mr Harmse that the bomb was placed there at about 4 am in the morning, but Mr Harmse in his evidence, when asked as to when he thought or

when he expected the bomb to explode, he said when the shops were opened.

Obviously targeting at life, not simply to allow a bomb to explode in a uninhabited shopping complex and thereby make a statement and gain the publicity, but he clearly foresaw that people would be killed.

Mr Froneman on the other hand says that he thought property would simply be damaged. Mr Harmse on the other hand said that as his Commanding Officer, he was satisfied that Froneman was aware of the fact that people would be killed.

So first of all it is the place and the target selected, then if one has a look and studies the nature of the device used, as a Committee member, Mr de Jager quite correctly points out, it was tantamount to laying a landmine.

That nature, the device was an uncontrolled explosive, it could kill anybody indiscriminately, it could be set off by a heavy truck or the vibrations of a truck just driving by. So it was an indiscriminate killer similar to landmines.

I submit that that is another fact that contributes to the proportionality and considering the act. Why I say that is if it was a controlled device, deliberately set to go off at a time when no civilians would be about, it may put a different light on the issue.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I have a difficulty I have to you in this regard which I would like to hear you on. We are told by the applicants that they now felt that war had broken out, that they were fighting against the government and to avoid takeover by the ANC, the SACP and others.

This was - they had now joined the war. All of us who had lived in this country, know what happened during that war, we know about bombs in shopping centres, we know - we have been told by Mr Prinsloo about many instances where innocent people were killed. If one has to have regard to proportionality, does one say that when these people do it, it is disproportionate, although the other people have been doing it for years?

MR BLACK: In reply to that Mr Chairman, I would submit that one should be careful in making a sweeping deduction perhaps from other instances which have occurred.

My submission is that this particular instance, the Committee or myself, I am certainly not aware of what orders were given for example in respect of any particular instance which may be generally be referred to in the past.

But when looking at this particular act of selecting a civilian target, my understanding - or it does not appear from the evidence placed before us that the Organisation to which Mr Harmse belonged, either authorised him or ordered him to target civilian targets.

JUDGE WILSON: It is my problem. You are trying to make this an orthodox war. He says as I understand his evidence, this was the war against those people and that war would be fought in the same way surely. Orders were not binding quite clearly on members of this Organisation, they were not in the military, they were not binding on members of the ANC.

The point that causes me concern is can one distinguish the type of targets and say that if you - you are being disproportionate if you choose the same sort of target as have been chosen in the past.

MR BLACK: I think the Organisation such as the ANC is on record as saying that they do not target, civilians were not targets. In this particular instance ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well then I am afraid that a lot of the convictions that have taken place in our courts, must have been totally wrong, because there are cases where civilians were targeted and were killed in bars in Durban, for example.

MR BLACK: Yes. In this particular instance Mr Harmse was given to understand that the government and members of the ANC alliance together with big business, if one wants to call it that, were the enemy. What I am trying to say is I find it difficult to understand why the Muslim community civilians were targeted without there being any evidence or any evidence whatsoever that, first of all no government institution was involved, no attempt was made to find government institutions and secondly there is no evidence that the Muslim community as such in Bronkhorstspruit are all predominantly ANC supporters.

And I do not think that a shopping complex of that nature would, or there is no evidence rather, that it belonged to any big business organisation.

And my submission is that this act should, which was committed, is out of proportion therefor to the political objectives sought by the applicants.

And clearly ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, would I be wrong in saying that the leadership of the BWB approved of what they had done?

MR BLACK: This was specifically asked of Mr Harmse and he avoided saying, he said that he didn't receive any specific congratulations, but he assumes that it was approved of,

would image, because first of all he was promoted to the rank of General, Mr Froneman was awarded wings and he put it in a negative way saying that no one disapproved of ...

ADV DE JAGER: What would you say, is that an approval or a disapproval?

MR BLACK: It can either be, I would assume it was an approval or it could have been an opt-out in many ways, because I should imagine in my submission, that there must, as Mr Harmse says, it so happens that this act brought about tragic consequences for some person who ...

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, at least we could accept that there was no demotion?

MR BLACK: That is so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And the wings were produced and given and I gather, I may be incorrect in this but the statement was made to the media, that this was an act performed by the Boer - BWB and never challenged by anybody.

MR BLACK: Even if that is the case, the point I am getting at is, even if it was done with political motives, even if it was done with political approval of the Organisation, it was - the approval appear to be after, subsequent to the event. And I am submitting that that still does not attract from the fact that the act committed, the gravity of the act is out of proportion to the objectives sought to be achieved.

That is the point that I am trying to make and in doing so, one should, in my submission, take into account the target, the nature of the target, the nature of the device used, the fact that - I would submit - both parties, applicants knew that civilians were going to be killed and the fact that it had tragic, as was proved, objectively it

was proved that the policeman, Mr Labushachne, who investigated the incident or the object, was killed because the nature of the object was such that it was a lethal device which could be detonated by simply shaking it.

And it was a totally uncontrolled, cowardly form of device that was used. I know it may well be so, but if the objective was to be obtained of publicity, of indicating or making a statement to the government or to parties who were regarded as the enemy, that the AWB or Mr Harmse's Organisation was not going to just sit by, a device, a controlled, a properly controlled device or an explosive could have been used in a building, at a government building, unoccupied by persons and the equal amount of publicity would have been resulted.

What has happened here, is the publicity and tragic loss of life and nothing achieved.

JUDGE WILSON: You keep coming back to government building, government building, but doesn't the position throughout the world that these terrorist organisations strike at all sorts of building and places as for example, Aintree Race Course, last Saturday, hardly a government building, but nobody has disputed that it was the act of the IRA in furtherance of their objects?

MR BLACK: I am not able to comment on that, and I don't know if the IRA have claimed responsibility, but my submission is that that still does not detract from the proportionality business or two wrongs do not make a right.

And I submit therefor that had Mr Harmse or his Organisation wanted to achieve the objective as he says, to demonstrate to affected parties, or the enemy as he calls it, that they were just not sitting by and allowing CODESA

to proceed, there was no need to deliberately go out and plant a lethal device, uncontrolled explosive, in a shopping complex which both Mr Harmse knew or he expected would be occupied by Muslim people and he, Mr Harmse, knew or thought that the bomb would actually go off when the doors were, attempts were made to open the doors and therefor he deliberately went out to kill people and my submission is that that is out of all proportion to the objective which was allegedly being sought, to further and to publicise the aims and objectives of his Organisation.

I have, there is no evidence that his Organisation's policy was to murder and to maim innocent people.

I have nothing further, Mr Chairman, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in my argument I have already dealt with many of the aspects to which Mr Black has referred. With regard to the proportionality I have also dealt with this matter and I want to argue with respect that one could make a very long list of acts of the ANC where innocent persons were involved, but I am sure that you are aware of this list.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black's argument is that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that they did this, makes this just as wrong as the fact that Mr Harmse did so.

ADV PRINSLOO: The ANC believed that they would reach their goal and in my argument I have in fact stated that they have met their goal. Similarly the applicant believed that he would reach his goal.

The argument is not that he believed that it was a wrong act at that time, he considered it an act of war. In the context of a war declared against the ANC/SACP alliance

and the then government, and with respect, that is what occurred.

One could never, ever consider any person for amnesty if you were to consider what other persons did and this person believed in a specific ideal and he acted in terms of that ideal. His Organisation was structured in a particular way, there was a military wing, the Boer Republican Army, similarly to the military wing of the ANC.

The difference then is in terms of the goals and ideals, but my argument is with respect that there was no lack of proportionality between the act and the ideal or goal.

With regard to big business or the so called large financial institutions, it was his testimony that the Muslim Indian, members of the Muslim Indian community had in fact the particular financial means to contribute to the aims of the ANC.

With regard to State institutions and the difference drawn. With respect I want to argue that the testimony of the witness is that by placing the bomb at the commercial centre, he believed that this would make a difference.

A State or a government building was therefor not considered. A further aspect that the - it would have been better to use a controlled device, with respect Mr Chairman, you have pointed out to Mr Black the fact that landmines have been used in many cases. This was a situation of war.

A further aspect is that it is clear that the applicant Mr Harmse, was promoted in the Boer Republican Army because of this act, there was no other reason for his promotion.

Thank you Honourable Chairman.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I have nothing to add.

JUDGE WILSON: The Committee will take time to arrive at its decision. That concludes today's hearing, we will adjourn till what time tomorrow morning Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I hope nine o'clock. That is the scheduled time, I did make enquiries that you raised. The Prison authorities had some difficulty in locating the venue, but they tell me they were here at ten past nine, this morning.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, we will adjourn till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

JUDGE WILSON: I must once again apologise to the members of the public and others for the fact that this hearing did not commence at nine o'clock as it was supposed to. The initial cause of the delay was once again the late arrival of the applicants, through no fault of their own. What was the cause of the delay thereafter I do not know. But I am sorry for the members of the public who have had to sit here waiting. Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman, the first matter which I wish to mention, is the matter which was set down for hearing for tomorrow, but after various discussions with all parties involved, we have agreed that the matter be removed from the roll. There are two applications in effect. It is the application of J Wheeler, application number 2084/96 and the application of Mr C Pyper, application number 5179/97. JUDGE WILSON: As I understand it, the reason for the removal is due to the delay in an amendment to the Act and not to any fault of the parties.

MR BLACK: That is so, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, the matter is removed?

MR BLACK: Okay.

JUDGE WILSON: The matter is removed from the roll. I trust all the parties have been notified and they will not - including the prison authorities, so no one will be put to any inconvenience tomorrow.

MR BLACK: I haven't got hold of the prison authorities yet, but the legal representatives of the parties and the victims have all been notified.

JUDGE WILSON: The applicant may not object to being taken on a drive round Johannesburg, so if you don't get in touch with him it won't really cause him any great prejudice.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, the reason is that the cut-off date hasn't been extended yet.

MR BLACK: That is so. That is so.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not switched on) ... the Constitution and the Act has got to be amended and we are almost nearing the 10th of May so this should be done as an urgent matter.

MR BLACK: I have spoken to the Constitutional Development Department. I am told that they are in the process of preparing a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution, and that amendment was - the proposal must still be approved of by the Minister and the Cabinet and thereafter debated in Parliament.

JUDGE WILSON: Right, the next matter?

MR BLACK: The next matter is the matter of Mr Phineas Ndlovu. It is application number 1702/96. In this matter I may inform the Committee that all the victims and relatives are in fact present and three of the victims will want to give evidence in this matter and perhaps depending on what Mr Ndlovu says, may wish to cross-examine, put questions to him.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, you have been connected with this matter in one capacity or another for some time. We have had the papers served on us of the various applications and of such matters, and it appears there were originally a number of persons involved in this incident and that - five or six weren't there?

MR CURRIN: Six.

JUDGE WILSON: Six. And that all the others, save for the applicant, have been granted some form of relief. They are no longer serving their sentences, either indemnity or as a result of negotiations. A recommendation was made that the applicant should be treated in the same way. The only information we have or the only information I have been able to see, subject to anything Mr Black may point out, is that it was refused. But no grounds are set out in the papers

before us. So perhaps you could tell us briefly, if you know of what the reasons were or are.

MR CURRIN: I too have not been given the reasons. So I am not in a position to enlighten you, other than to say that -well, I don't know, because the Minister of Justice recommended, if he accepted our recommendation, that is the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation and made a recommendation to the President. So I am not really in a position to say why the President decided not to grant amnesty in terms of the previous legislation.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you informed us that the victims are present and that they would like to cross-examine the applicant maybe. Have they got any legal representation?

MR BLACK: No, Mr Commissioner, they haven't any legal representation. I canvassed that issue with them. They don't - I have explained fully the procedure and what the purpose of this hearing is all about and that it is not a re-trial as it were. They feel that they are quite satisfied if they don't have any legal representation and I will assist them in every possible way.

ADV DE JAGER: They have been informed of their rights that they could make use of legal aid and they prefer not to have legal or they are satisfied not to have legal representation and that you could represent them in this matter?

MR BLACK: That is so. I did tell them that they are entitled to legal representation and financial assistance would be afforded in any other way possible, and that I would be assisting them in this instance, should they require any form of legal assistance.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, one other matter which I will ask

you to confirm if I am correct in this, and that is that apart from the recommendation by the Minister, the Attorney-General was asked to comment on the applications of all of them, and in a letter dated the 23rd of March 1993 he put all six of them in the same category. He did not in any way seek to say that the present applicant should be treated differently. His words were "die applicant en sy mede-beskuldigdes se optrede nie 'n politieke merk daar stel nie". So it was, he treated them all as having the same purpose.

MR CURRIN: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: You may carry on.

MR CURRIN: Could I then call the applicant, Phineas Ndlovu.

Mr Chairman, Mr Ndlovu will testify in English, he is fluent in English, so there will not be a need to translate his evidence.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: (sworn states)

ADV DE JAGER: But for the sake of the victims, I think that they have got, if the people sitting there, they have got earphones and it will be translated for their benefit.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ndlovu, you can move that loudspeaker across in front of you and a little closer to you. That will be better, I think.

EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ndlovu, your amnesty application was drafted by you with the assistance of my assistant, Paula McBride. You have a copy of that application. Do you have it with you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is in front of that desk.

MR CURRIN: I would just ask you to, in broad terms, to confirm the content of the application insofar as it relates to your personal knowledge. Those aspects which relate to

your personal knowledge, I would just in broad terms like you to confirm. Is its contents correct as far as you know?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. Before we deal with the actual incident which resulted in the deaths of four people, I would like you to give some background information to the Commission, to the Amnesty Committee, and I would like you to start with your activities, in general terms, your activities as a young comrade in Daveyton during the mid-eighties, starting with how you became a comrade.

MR NDLOVU: During the years of eighties, it was in the year 1983 that the government decided to legislate or pass laws that would say there were age limitations to education. I was not affected by that immediately but as one of the people who were at high school, we took that as an offence because we regarded that there was no age limit in education, and why was this being fostered to us as students of the other race. And immediately thereof I, with my fellow students, challenged the government. We boycotted classes, we went on rampage, helping workers with their consumer boycott and all other means that would help us register our protest against what was being fostered upon us.

During those years it became evident to me that all along I was not aware of the system that had given me the inferior education, and it is then that I realised that there are people like Comrade Mandela and others, who have been jailed for speaking out against oppression that is being enforced on us. It is then that I became aware of the political environment that I lived in, day in and day out. ADV DE JAGER: What was your age then?

MR NDLOVU: My age was 18.

MR CURRIN: At what stage - sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not switched on).

MR NDLOVU: 1983.

ADV DE JAGER: But weren't you born in 1986, ag, 1968?

MR NDLOVU: 1968, yes, that is correct.

MR CURRIN: I think he meant when the offence was committed he was 18. You can continue.

MR NDLOVU: It is then that I found homage in school politics and they extended, to some extent, to the politics outside the environment in the schools, that I became part of the youth that was to oversee that in the location there was generally smooth running of things, namely, that our community should get rid of - should be a crime-free violence, that the frustrations that our fellow brothers who had passed their matric and couldn't have jobs were taking out on our fellow parents. They would, upon having not had maybe, for instance, university entrance marks, they would end up having no jobs. They would resort back to forming gangsters that would rob our parents, who by then would have woken up at four am to go and work for whatever peanuts that is being offered in those firms where they worked hard and toiled, but upon the coming day of salary, you would find our frustrated brothers - some who are literate and some who are illiterate - but who could not face the reason why they have been deprived of all the luxuries that our fellow South Africans of other colours were enjoying, would take their anger on our very fragile parents and take their little monies and our families would suffer as a result of that. Our sisters would not move around the location after the sun has set, because there was this element of our fellow

brothers having turned themselves into bandits. They would take them, rob them, rape them and do whatever they felt, what could suit their anger or would quench it for that matter. And those duties we had to take responsibility as youth to make it a point that this does not happen, and that the whole people who have been diverted from the national goal, that is to seek freedom and enjoy whatever South Africa has to offer, equally.

MR CURRIN: Before you go on, I would just like you to pause for a moment and tell the members of the Committee about the effectiveness of the police in addressing ordinary crime in the townships at that particular time, and in Daveyton at that particular time. We know about their involvement in the politics of the townships, but addressing ordinary crime. How effective were the police and why did the youth take it upon themselves to play a role in law and order?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, how effective are they today?

MR CURRIN: Well, that is a question which maybe one can deal with in argument. But he must answer in the context of his experience in his township in Daveyton in the 1980's.

MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before, it was chaotic, because police could not render us service that we so much required. And one disturbing element is that police in fact, we had agreements before with them. As student congress we used to go out and disarm our fellow brothers of weapons of that, weapons that killed our nation and we took those weapons, and handed them over to the police. But in return the police were not to be trusted. They took those very same weapons and gave it to gang members. So as to fight comrades. So this was the reason why the police could no longer be trusted and their effectiveness thereof was not

felt by us as a community.

And I should further state that upon realising this, there was a call that was made through the underground movement, the publications of Sichaba that police who were residing in our areas, because really, there was no one who was in the middle during the struggle. It is either you were with us or you were with the enemy. So police had already chosen their side. By the mere virtue of being a police and being on the other side of race, we would take you as a traitor and a collaborator. And when the era came that we should read of policeman who were residing with us, stooges, informers and all that, it is then that we realised that the error that we made, we have armed people that could use these weapons effectively or worse, in maiming us, people who are trying to create an environment that is free for the launching of freedom of our people.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. Could you at this stage indicate your involvement in organisational politics at the time. What organisations and/or political structures were you involved in Daveyton at that stage?

MR NDLOVU: I was involved in Daveyton Student Congress and Daveyton Youth Congress, which were the affiliates of UDF. Ultimately the affiliate of the ANC or the external wing, as it has been referred by the previous regime.

MR CURRIN: Did you hold any office in either of those organisations?

MR NDLOVU: During those years we decided to name and divide our locations and name them after progressive countries rather, who were espoused to the ideology of communism. I was the chairman of a liberated zone called Russia.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. You have spoken about involvement in law and order activities and in your application there is a section that deals with people's courts. Did you play any role in people's courts, and if so, what was that role?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did play a role in the people's court. I was in fact the chairman in the people's court, and I had to take decisions of handing down sentences. And above all that, I had the task as well as with other comrades, to make sure that those who were offenders are being sought and brought to book. Because it was not everyone who would come voluntarily as if in a court of law is happening today.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, in what year were you a chairperson of the people's court in your area? What year was it when you were the chairperson of the people's court in your area?

MR NDLOVU: 1983 to 1985.

JUDGE WILSON: Were you chairman of the people's court at the age of 15?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR CURRIN: That question really prompts another aspect which I would like to canvass with you. At the tender age of 15 when youngsters of that age should be on soccer fields playing football and should be having fun with their peer group, you were a highly politicised young activist. Could you tell us what, if you are able, to tell us what that did to your psyche, to your soul, to your persona, bearing in mind this incredible responsibility that you had on your shoulders, as a chairperson of a people's court of taking the struggle forward. How did you deal with this as a person at that age?

MR NDLOVU: As a person it affected me in more than one way. My school job suffered a lot. Evidently I was a very brilliant student. If I had failed, really it would be in

the mid-year examination, and I would have been number 3, that would be a failure. But come December, I wouldn't let my parents down. I would make it a point that I am number 1. So in a way it did affect me. I started disliking some subjects, for instance Afrikaans, as it was branded then, that it was the language of the oppressor and in education you really had to pass three of these languages, and it was difficult for me to deal with that as such.

In life generally, at home there was no longer peace between myself and my family. My place was frequented by security police and the soldiers and they would come, assault my mom and I had to leave my home. I had to stay in scrap cars to sleep there and go home only to fetch lunch or to sneak in and have a bath and then go to school. At school as well, I had to hide when I had to come out of school, because the area as there was turmoil at the time you would that it is frequented by police. And I guess I didn't have much of sleep, because any car that passed by or gave sound of, the one I know - Casspirs, Hippos or (indistinct) that were used by the SAP would eventually give the call that I should wake up and start running.

What is worst of all, I had to resort to violence as there were no other means of sjambokking people who had been convicted or found guilty in a people's court. And to some aspects some hated me but it was okay to have enemies for doing the right thing.

As of showing people that I did have feelings, I had to hide them. I didn't have to have feelings. The duties that I was called upon to do, didn't allow me just like any young person at the time, to be spoilt by my mom, to seek love of parents and what have you, I didn't have time for that.

I missed all those years.

ADV DE JAGER: How did you become chairman of the people's court, who appointed or chose you?

MR NDLOVU: I was chosen by my comrade colleagues.

MR CURRIN: Were they of similar age? What ages were they, your colleagues?

MR NDLOVU: They varied, M'Lord, from the youngest would be round about 9, 10 and there were older ones as well, who would range from 30 and below. Being a comrade really at the time didn't have to be determined by the age one was in.

MR CURRIN: Did you show leadership qualities, is that why you were chosen as the chairperson? Were you regarded as one of the leaders?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I was regarded as one of the leaders, because everything that had to be done, if it wasn't done properly, in or around the location, then I would be the one who is called to come and make sure that everything is in accordance. The were other liberated zones and during that time in our society, we had people in gang members who were most feared. People who you would hear stories that they have been to places as far as Lesotho to go and perform their African ritual or cultural or what have you, to strengthen themselves to create images that they be feared. Should anyone of that nature suffer they would all resort that the only place where we could find the solution or someone who could deal with this person, it is to go to Russia and bring back those comrades.

MR CURRIN: Would you just bear with me for a moment. I just want to confer with my assistant.

MR BLACK: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I was just going to use this

opportunity to satisfy myself that the victims are - that we can continue, Sir.

MR CURRIN: Mr Ndlovu, I would now want us to move to the incident which occurred on the 2nd of June 1987.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you could please enquire from the victims whether they could follow what is going on or whether they need assistance there?

MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman, they are following the proceedings.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could we now talk about the incident on the 2nd of June 1987, in which you were involved and which resulted in the tragic death of four people. I think you should - I would like you to start by telling us about your visit to the shebeen, and we will then take the evidence from there.

MR NDLOVU: On the said day when we reached the entrance of the said place, we met on the way out and a security police member who was known to be notorious for his acts of torturing us comrades, and who was looking for us, so as to apprehend us with his colleagues to the system. And this infuriated us, because he already knew who we were and we exchanged bitter looks and we went into the café. And my comrade popped out the sum of R10,00 and bought some food so that we could have some supper before we went to our hiding places. But however, upon that he questioned why was that place being frequented by the police and why Mr Masupa had had a conversation with that man.

MR CURRIN: The Masupa you refer to, is that Hendrik?

MR NDLOVU: Hendrik.

MR CURRIN: Masupa.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord. And upon that, Mr Masupa, that

is Hendrik, answered arrogantly and started telling us that he knew all about our moves, places we sleep in and he knew how to deal with us and he was going to inform Sfuti and we must know now that they know of us, we won't be a neck or we won't bother them anymore with our searches that we used to do. And we usually on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, there was this routine that we normally undergone to search shebeens and rid of weapons of that that were carried by our fellow citizens. So that whatever happens after that they could not kill one another. So he started boasting that we won't be able to bother them anymore about that, because we were going in.

That infuriated us and we felt that something must be done and it had to be done drastically. Because in one of the days, a week before or so, we were standing in the very - it is a bigger complex, we were standing on the other end, and the very same man we had just passed on the doorway, he came and described me with the tooth that I am having here. I had a knock and it changed or tainted the colour of my teeth, and he said he knew now that that, he used my name that was not known to people outside the ranks, that is Barrah-Barrah, because they often said I don't laugh. So they used that very name and described that the one with the pinkish tooth and immediately I saw that he was accosting me and I ran off. Upon us researching and trying to gather information as to how did it come about with this description and the name, we were told that before he came to this other end, he had stopped on that other end to speak to Mr Masupa. As he boasted about this now, the whole thing came into a pattern. We now realised that what we were dealing with was someone who had gone out of the way to

inform about us and our activities.

We then decided to fight him but fighting him physically was not good anyway, because there were many, as you would be aware, there are two - it's a two-storey place, on the top is a shebeen and beneath it is a café where food and other materials is being sold. So there are many people there and workers who were there. So they started coming in, all of them on top of us. Upon that scuffle two Casspirs accosted that area and we ran off.

When we ran off we decided that it was time that we talked and read a public lesson, that first, he cannot live with us and yet work for the other side. It is then that we decided to go and purchase fuel and we came back with that fuel. As it was the culture then, we decided to go and burn down where he laid his head, meaning his home.

When we reached that place we knocked and we were asked who are you, and we responded "comrades". The door was opened and we then informed them of our intentions. Angry as we were, whilst I was informing them of our intentions, petrol was poured to the floor and I asked my comrade to wait so that we could evacuate people inside. But in that confusion a stick of match was lit. I extinguished it and I tried to plead with the people to go out, but seemingly their attitude had been that having known us, as we are from the very same area, they thought either we are bluffing or as they usually referred to us, because we were many of us who had been comrades, for that matter, had been referred to as "(...indistinct)", because either at home we wouldn't have, we didn't have enough money to be dressed neatly like our counterparts, or they were so fortunate to have a café

and a shebeen on top, so they could afford.

So we were demeaned in words and we felt that this could not go on any longer. As I was talking, my comrades were angry, I was angry myself but what we wanted to do was to burn down the house, so as to indicate that anyone who should not even dare think of selling us out to the security.

The second stick was lit. I managed as well to extinguish that stick, and I tried to talk to the people. The stove was on, as I remember very well, it was hot. It was red, in fact, on top, and I even thought that the way this had created a smell of petrol in the house, it was going to explode. So I pleaded with people to hurry up and get out. But it couldn't happen.

Finally, I couldn't catch the other stick. It came in front of me and it touched the fuel. We were all inside the house and the house was in flames.

The door was closed and the door lock had broken. It was not in proper shape, that one could just pull it once and open. So we fought with the door as the house was in fire. I was in flames. Apparently when the fuel was poured, the comrade was pouring petrol on the floor. He had initially poured petrol in my legs. I was wearing a cotton sock. So it absorbed a lot of petrol. I was in flames as well.

Ultimately I managed to put my finger in and pressed it against the door, the door lock, because it had two holes, but it had broken in-between, so I managed to push it in and open whilst I was in flame. The door was opened. We all moved out.

That is the last time I left the scene. We ran out,

probably a sound of windows breaking down, I could hear it whilst we were walking away and people screaming.

MR CURRIN: In your evidence - sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, sorry. You ran away while you were in flames, your clothes wetted with petrol?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I suffered burn injuries as a result. I had to be hospitalised and upon being hospitalised I met the family of the victims and the deceased in the hospital. I was there as well.

ADV DE JAGER: How did you extinguish the flames?

MR NDLOVU: Upon getting out in the gate, is a gravel, I should say, it is the gravel road. I managed to pour soil on top of the flames and my comrades helped me to extinguish the flames that were in my clothes.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, just as a matter of information, I am not sure whether Mr Black has informed you that we do have a copy of the entire court record, which we would, obviously, make available to you. In that record there is evidence about the fact that Mr Ndlovu did suffer burn wounds and was hospitalised.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, why wasn't this court record made available to us before the hearing started, so that we could study it and put questions about it?

MR CURRIN: I didn't know until very recently that you didn't have a copy of the record. This was my copy of my record and I did not ...

ADV DE JAGER: I was present last week when we were phoned about it and we requested to forward a copy of the record, if you had one in your possession and we never received it.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I was in Lesotho unfortunately.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, your assistant - Mr Black spoke to her ...(intervention)

MR CURRIN: Yes, but I had the record with me. So I was in Cape Town and then I went to Lesotho and I had the record with me for my own preparation purposes. I was unaware of the fact until the last, I think yesterday or the day before, did I find out that you in fact didn't have a copy of the record. My assistant tells me that Mr Kleynhans of the indemnity office also has a copy of this record and that your Committee and personnel were referred to Mr Kleynhans' office to get yourselves a copy from - before Mr Black got involved, right from when the application was originally lodged.

Be that as it may, as I say I am - there are two volumes which are not all that extensive which deal comprehensively with the evidence and I will, since you obviously don't have your own copy, which I heard, as I say when I was in Lesotho, I will make it available to you to give you an opportunity to study it thoroughly and I will also indicate during the course of the evidence the extent or those aspects of the testimony which differ from that at the hearing so that you are aware of those differences.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, were you made aware of the fact that Mr Kleynhans had a copy of the record, or that he was asked about the record?

MR BLACK: No, after the perusal of the application, throughout this application there was reference made to the record. There are references made to pages of the record.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: I have immediately I had a number of discussions on this matter with Mr Currin's assistant, and she informed

me that he has a copy, complete set of the record. I was asking for copies of that record. They were never made available to me and I was at one stage told to get hold of Mr Kleynhans, who was away at that stage. He was away on Easter vacation and I enquired from the indemnity offices and the correctional services people if they have any copy of a complete record. What they have in their possession, according to me, is what is contained in the bundle of documents which is before the Court. There is no complete court record available.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you been informed that it is important to make contact with Mr Kleynhans and enquire about records he has, in all applications, all cases where there have been applications for indemnity?

MR BLACK: Yes, we had ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Because this is a matter that Mr De Jager and I raised a considerable time ago, after we had visited and seen the records there available, that this should be done in every case.

MR BLACK: Well, in this case the indemnity record, as the Committee will notice, is contained in the bundle before the Court. That is all that was forwarded to us. The applications for indemnity and the reasons for refusal. That is the correspondence contained in the court - in the file.

JUDGE WILSON: What page is this, the application is made for a copy of the record if available?

MR BLACK: I will have to look at the original files, but as my - as the assistant to Mr Currin says, that application was dealt with by another member of the - before I came to join the Commission.

JUDGE WILSON: This is what worries me. I feel, and I am sure the other members of the Committee agree with me, that as a matter of course application should be made to obtain copies of the complete indemnity records, if they are available, and it is clear from this application that a copy of the record was - that there was a record and there was references made, volume 1, page 58; volume 1, page 663, and so it goes on.

MR BLACK: That is so. Mr Chairman, we - our section, the amnesty section must have applied because a record was or a file rather, was used, furnished to us by the indemnity people. That has enabled us to compile this bundle. But on reading the amended or the annexure submitted by Mr Currin, to which he is referring to court records, or volumes of the court record, I immediately, when I read that, telephonically I was in touch and in contact with Mrs McBride and she said she would convey this to Mr Currin, and get a copy - make available to us a copy of the court record.

JUDGE WILSON: What worries me is the lack of the contact with Mr Kleynhans and the records, official records that are already in possession - they were in possession of the indemnity committee.

MR BLACK: Mr Kleynhans must ...

JUDGE WILSON: And we are told now that he has a copy of the record.

MR BLACK: Well, not according to our - the notes as a result with enquiries made with Mr Kleynhans by us. Mr Kleynhans' office furnished us with a complete file which they had in their possession.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In the trial when you

testified, there was no evidence by you or any of your co-accused about having met a member of the security forces at the entrance to the shebeen or any evidence about the discussion you had with Hendrik or any reference to your view, your belief that Hendrik was an informer. Could you please explain the fact that none of this was mentioned during the trial and you are raising it now in public for the first time?

MR NDLOVU: For starters, I should mention that the very same people as I have indicated that it is the security branch, is the very same people who arrested us, and you wouldn't dare say something that would offend them. As it would appear in the record, we were assaulted, even though we had suffered burn wounds, we were assaulted and we had to say what would not put us in danger. But as in during the trial proceedings, the regime had made it very clear, that anyone who is found guilty of any crime that relates to arson, necklace, all those acts that they were rendering barbaric, horrendous or whatever term that they used at the time, would ultimately get the maximum sentence, of which is the death penalty. That sobered us, that we need to do something drastically, because there would be no extenuating circumstances as the then head of this country, Mr P W Botha had indicated, that he will come down on us very hard. That in itself made us aware that we didn't - we were prepared to be martyrs of the struggle, but should there be any alternative that we could survive whatever onslaught or attack from the enemy, then surely we had to use it. That is why we resorted in trying to come up with something that would create extenuating circumstances.

MR CURRIN: In the - would it be correct to say that what

you have said, that you went out of your way to depoliticise the incident?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it was that it had to be done. We even came to an agreement that even our other comrades who were at the time minors, the State afforded them the services of a social worker and we warned them strongly that that should not suffice at any cost, but it is unfortunate that during the deliberations by Justice De Klerk, when we were sentenced, it then came out that they had in fact given us out. Because we believed, as we have told them, that any mention of that would ultimately qualify us for that.

MR CURRIN: Any mention of what?

MR NDLOVU: Of the fact that this was a political issue and that what we were doing was executing orders that have been given to us through the underground structures, of reeding informers, stooges and collaborators of the State out of our communities. But unfortunately this did surface on the report of the social worker that was rendered to do this. And it created a division amongst us. Because when we had already been sentenced, we could not speak or see each other eye to eye as comrades. For the mere fact that that has been mentioned and we had come to an agreement that it should not be so.

MR CURRIN: In your evidence and in the evidence at the trial, the question of alcohol was raised, and you and others admitted or said that you had consumed, if I remember correctly, half a dozen bottles of quart and a bottle of Mainstay Caine, prior to going to the shebeen. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that was mentioned in the trial, and as I have just indicated before, those were means to get us off

the sentence that was hanging above our shoulders and we decided that in most cases that we have read through papers, heard from the news, we had heard and we had heard and we had realised that in most of the cases, when people pleaded insanity or pleaded that they were under the influence of drugs, what-have-you, liquor, et cetera, some kind of leniency was being shown that they were not responsible for their actions, and that ultimately would help us create extenuating circumstances that would get us off the death sentence.

MR CURRIN: You had five co-accused. There were six of you that were involved in this incident, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR CURRIN: Do you know on what basis four of you were released early? Released, certainly a considerable time ago.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I am aware that the key co-accused which is Johannes Setocho was released on April 25th 1991, as a result of agreements between the organisation, the African National Congress and the then regime. And the other three who I had been with in maximum after my - after the commuting of the death sentence that I was sentenced to, were released in 1992 during the record of understanding. And the other one has since been released in 1995 in Modderbee Prison.

MR CURRIN: So the four that were released for political reasons as far as you know, were released as a result of political deals that were reached between the then government and the African National Congress.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you a member of the ANC?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I am a member of the African National Congress.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they negotiate on behalf of the others for their release?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is so.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they negotiate for your release too?

MR NDLOVU: Pardon me, M'Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: Did the African National Congress negotiate for your release also?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they come back and report to you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did come back and report to me.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did they say, why weren't you released then?

MR NDLOVU: Initially in 1992 I was informed that when a list was made of political prisoners, that were handed in to the government, an error happened, and it was indicated in the 1994 Human Rights Commission report that a certain Phineas Ndlovu was released in my place. So that was the explanation that I got. But however, upon pursuing this the then Minister of Justice, Minister Kobie Coetzee, said he was going to look to the matter and see what could be done, because some where released and some were not, and when I enquired, the last I heard of it is that the Minister had forwarded the recommendations that I be released to the office of the State President. And ever since I was made aware that the opposition party in government wouldn't allow that I be released alone, and that a deal need to be struck politically that this should go across the political spectrum. If I be released alone as a member of the ANC, it would be taken as - it would offend other parties, so to

speak. So the process need to be revisited and ultimately I was informed that I need to look at this from the angle that the TRC, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was being installed and ultimately I will be afforded an opportunity to come and present my case and the decision would lie entirely upon the Commission.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I think it would be helpful just for me to give a - just a very brief explanation because I do know what happened in his particular case. His name was left off as a result of an administrative error. There was at the time a lot of backwards and forwarding and running and trying to organise this list of names of people that were to be submitted. His is not the only name that was left off. There are other cases where groups of people were found guilty and three or four or five or six of a larger group's names appeared whereas others did not appear. When you read through this record you will see that his involvement was no more or no less than the others. There is no reason in regard to the actual crime that would justify his name being left off. It was purely an administrative error. My enquiries a couple of years ago, indicated that that was in fact the case. The reason why, and I don't, I can't tell you why President Mandela did not approve the - what was in President Mandela's mind as to why he did not approve the recommendation, but the information that I got from other sources and my understanding of discussions that I had with other political players, was that throughout that period there were deals that were being struck; if we release a person from the left then we must release a person from the right, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And that negotiation was going on right through the early nineties and at some stage there was a decision that they would stop releasing people on political deals and hand it over to the Truth Commission and at the end of the day let the Truth Commission decide.

Another one, for example, which was similar was the case of Brian Mitchell. In my capacity as chairperson of that advisory committee, we also recommended that Brian Mitchell be released. And it was - because there was this general decision once it was known that there was going to be an amnesty committee as part of the Truth Commission, they decided to leave it up to the Amnesty Committee to deal with the matters as and when they came before the Committee. So one can say that they really transferred the responsibility of dealing with these matters to yourselves.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, when was this administrative error made, which resulted in his name being omitted?

MR CURRIN: It was made at the time that the names were submitted before the Record of Understanding which was in 1991, sorry 1992. And if it would be necessary for you, one could get all the documentation relating to the background and the correspondence and the actual agreement and the names that were part of that Record of Understanding, and one could also speak to - which I have done - with members of the National Executive of the African National Congress, who confirmed to me that the omission of certain names was purely an error. It was not a decision that was taken on merit, that Phineas' involvement, for example, was more than the others and therefore they were not putting his name on the list.

MS KHAMPEPE: Speaking for myself (microphone not switched on - indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's mike not switched on - indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct). Sorry. Your Committee recommended in 1995 that he should be released and you forwarded a list of ten persons and six of them were released and four not.

MR CURRIN: That's why I don't - I can't understand why of the ten that were forwarded, six were released and four were not. But I do know that there had been a decision in 1995 that since the Truth Commission was being established and there was going to be an Amnesty Committee, that committee should deal with these difficult cases, as they were termed. That is my information.

With regard to all the documentation, the records, the agreements, the Record of Understanding, the history, the background to that, all of that documentation is available at the office of the Indemnity Board in Pretoria. I know that it is there because I have seen it when I was involved as the chairperson of the Advisory Committee. We worked from all that documentation. So it is there and one could get it either from Mr Kleynhans or one of his assistants.

When you went to the house and you threw petrol in the house, how many of the comrades, the accused were in the house at the time?

MR NDLOVU: I can't be precise but almost all of us, but I think there was one co-accused who was left outside, that could be Sitoga.

MR CURRIN: Yes.

MR NDLOVU: Almost five of us were in the house.

MR CURRIN: And it is clear from the record that before the fire started the people in the house knew that you were in the house. You say that you had dialogue with them.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR CURRIN: Was it your intention that people should die in this fire?

MR NDLOVU: No, I have never intended to kill anyone. Our intention was to burn down the house. But however, things didn't go as we anticipated. And as a result of our actions, people died, but never there was any agreement between us to kill anyone on that said day. It was never our intention to kill. We went there with the sole purpose of burning down the house, but as a result of that people died.

MR CURRIN: How did you at the time feel about the fact that your action had resulted in the death of four people?

MR NDLOVU: I felt sad and as it could be seen, when I was asked this during the cross-examination in the Supreme Circuit Court, Supreme Court, I broke down twice, because I regretted that people died as a result of my action. Though I didn't intend to do that, but any death of a fellow citizen in this country is regrettable. I have been raised in a family. I had once lost my uncle. I know the pain, I know the grief. I have lost my grandfather and I know how painful it is to lose someone who is dear and who is a family.

MR CURRIN: You mentioned that you were in hospital with other members of the family, with Hendrik's family members and members of the family who had lost loved ones in this incident, did they know that you, they knew that you were a person that was responsible for the fire?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they knew and they were angry. They said

horrible things. I understood it and I took it that yes, they were right to say those things, they were feeling a pain and as a result of my action they have lost loved ones, and ... (intervention).

MR CURRIN: Did you - carry on.

MR NDLOVU: And to my knowledge I knew that if they had opportunity or time to do it, they could avenge that, they could kill me as well. That's how angry they were. I even at some stage feared for my life, thinking that upon visit they would send people to avenge the loss of their loved ones.

MR CURRIN: Did you approach them at all while you were in hospital? Was it opportune, was there a lot of time for you to approach them and to talk about what you had done?

MR NDLOVU: The first time we met it was in a place where there are two doors. I take it is a room for people who have been seriously injured and the other room for people with minor burn injuries. And when we met at the door, they hurled abusive words and all that, but I kept saying to them "I'm sorry you lost people. Hadn't it been for Hendrik's actions we wouldn't be in this situation". I kept, I apologised and I knew they wouldn't hear me, because of the pain they were in.

MR CURRIN: Now as you sit here before the Amnesty Committee, and on your left-hand side there are members of the family who lost their loved ones, is there anything that you would like to say here in public to them?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, there is. For the past ten years, even during my stay in death row, I have been agonising and having this pain, that I have caused people pain as a result of my actions, and it cannot end up there. I know it is

difficult but today I am happy that I am going to have an opportunity to say it really from the depth of my heart, not as a token of trying to ease them or ease my conscience, I really am sorry that as a result of my action and my comrades you had to lose loved ones. Nothing can replace life. I know how important is life. Believe me, even in death row, I wasn't worried that I was going to hang, I was worried that my actions have led to a situation that you should lose loved ones. I am sorry. I know saying sorry is something that can be very simple. It is simple to say I am sorry. You can make an error. But forgiving is something else. I don't expect you to forgive me. I know it is difficult, but I here and now apologise to you from the depth of my heart and I believe that you will consider forgiving me. I have suffered really, emotionally, physically. I had dreams that one day I will be a doctor, I will be able to afford my mom a decent house and afford him a living. Now all that cannot happen. I am sorry. I hope in your heart of hearts you will find a way, even if you don't forgive me now, but reconcile with me. These wounds I am carrying inside may not heal, I know it is easy to say. You have scars, you have suffered, you have suffered more than I have ever imagine a person can suffer. Life is irreplaceable. If there was anything I would do to bring back all your loved ones, I would believe it, even if it meant I should put my life at stake, I would do it. I am sorry it ever happened, I can't sleep ever since. There is something in my conscience that says but the cause was just, but in the process people lost their lives. I cannot walk up tall with a head, with my head high. Whatever achievements I have, there is still something hanging in my

back. And I ask of you, to please, please, please consider forgiving me. Asking forgiveness from you would be something else, but I here now plead with you. I know it is difficult, but I plead with you to please consider forgiving me. Thank you.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. Could I just confer with my assistant for a moment?

JUDGE WILSON: You look as though you might be some time, Mr Currin. Would this be a suitable stage to take a short adjournment?

MR CURRIN: Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: We will take a short adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

PHINEAS NDLOVU: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (cont): The argument was about political issues. Are you saying that there was no argument about money, what are you saying?

MR NDLOVU: No, there was argument about money. In fact it triggered off the whole question of the way Hendrik perceived us and the way he handled himself, but the whole question started around the issue of the money that was used to purchase the foodstuff that we had bought. And ultimately, when Comrade Mahlangu said to him you didn't give us the money and then that started off swearing and yelling at one another. Then it went to that stage where it became evidently clear from his utterances that surely he was not on our side.

MR CURRIN: You said the way in which he perceived you. Could you just, you said it became apparent, the way in which Hendrik perceived you, I suppose, as comrades, became apparent. What did you mean by that, how did he perceive you?

MR NDLOVU: Well, he took us for low-lives. For one, he had a decent house and where he could lay his head. Some of us had parents who were staying in shacks and as a norm in our society we have the standard that people should wear this and that and that. So of us, many of us could not afford that, it is true as a result of our parents could not afford, some of us were many in the families, and all that, and so that made us aware. Of course, that is why our parents could not afford this. And in all this at times he would bar us from enforcing consumer boycotts, because he had interest of the café, and by so doing, to me it appeared that he wanted to be a role model citizen, whereas he was barring us from effecting what would bring changes in our lives and of the entire citizens in this country.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, how would he prevent you from embarking on consumer boycotts, as Hendrik Masupa?

MR NDLOVU: There is a cafe, it is a two-storey building and Mr Masupa works beneath the shebeen that is on top of this two-storey building. So whenever the trucks are coming, he would come out there and come out with the Right Gang members who used to be there and workers who were there. So they would want us to get involved in a fight and that

knowingly at a time there would be plenty and at times they would assist as you would know that, as a result of this consumer boycotts, trucks had to go with guards and what-have-you. So from our point of view, in our number we could outnumber and I would or disarm the guard whatever armoury is he having and effect that. So he used to come out with his friends and the gang members who had no duty, but stayed right there to help and assist and get whatever they can get out of, as compensation for working in that area.

ADV DE JAGER: How many members were they? His supporters, how many supporters or people were staying with him?

MR NDLOVU: It varied, but in the perspective of the café inside, usually there are three males who worked there to off-load and what have-you, and then ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Give me an idea. I know, but of his supporters that could gang up against your army of comrades?

MR NDLOVU: There would be plus minus 20.

ADV DE JAGER: And your comrades, how many were you?

MR NDLOVU: It depended on the day of how many are available at a time.

ADV DE JAGER: But you have hundreds of comrades, didn't you have?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I have hundreds of comrades, M'Lord, but you would know we are covering a wide range of areas, so we are not despatched all of us in one area.

ADV DE JAGER: But if you wanted, in fact, if you wanted to bring them before the people's court and have a hearing, you could do so?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did, M'Lord, as I have indicated, that he has, if I haven't indicated, he has, as well, appeared before the people's court for a crime-related issue.

ADV DE JAGER: And what was the verdict?

MR NDLOVU: The verdict was guilty.

ADV DE JAGER: On what charge?

MR NDLOVU: Assaulting a person who had been drinking on the upper level in the shebeen, and he took advantage of that man and we found that totally unacceptable, because he ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Alright. And what did you sentence him to?

MR NDLOVU: We sentenced him to sjambok.

ADV DE JAGER: How many lashes?

MR NDLOVU: We sjambokked him five times.

ADV DE JAGER: And on this particular day, why didn't you summon him to the people's court before deciding to burn his house?

MR NDLOVU: The nature of what he had done compelled us to take the step that would ultimately teach him a lesson, because sjambokking repeatedly would not have helped us.

ADV DE JAGER: But it wasn't his place that you were burning, it was his family's place. He wasn't even staying there. Or he wasn't present up to the time that you burnt

the house?

MR NDLOVU: To us at the time, it was one way of punishing people who had crossed the line and have shown that they are for the other side.

JUDGE WILSON: How old was he?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?

JUDGE WILSON: How old was he?

MR NDLOVU: Hendrik?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR NDLOVU: My estimation would be around 20, 23 to 26, that is, I stand to be corrected on that.

JUDGE WILSON: And he did not live in this house, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: We knew that it was his home there.

JUDGE WILSON: It was his father's house, where his family lived, wasn't it?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And yet you chose to go and burn that house down. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct, M'Lord.

MR CURRIN: In your evidence previously you said we decided to go and burn the place where Hendrik laid his head. Those were your words.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR CURRIN: You meant that's where he sleeps, that's what you meant?

MR NDLOVU: I believe we had this norm with us, that wherever he grew up or wherever his family was, that was his place. So it is from that reasoning that we took this decision.

MS KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, Mr Ndlovu, where did

Hendrik Masupa live? Where did he go to after work? Did he go to his father's house?

MR NDLOVU: To my knowledge, yes, I knew it to be like that.

ADV DE JAGER: Where were you living?

MR NDLOVU: I was living in fact, I had no stable living place, but my family was on the other side of the street.

ADV DE JAGER: On the other side of the street?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So almost neighbours?

MR NDLOVU: You could say so.

ADV DE JAGER: You knew this family very well?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there children sleeping in that house?

MR NDLOVU: Come again?

ADV DE JAGER: Were there children sleeping in that house?

MR NDLOVU: In fact, that house, it is divided into two. So I wouldn't know if there were children who were sleeping in the main house, because there was a house, a garage that has been turned into a house, or a two-roomed and a garage, something like that. That is separate, but in the very same yard.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, there were children living in the house, so that you are not at such disadvantage. There were children, the record indicates it.

ADV DE JAGER: And when you went into this room and the petrol was thrown there, where was Hendrik?

MR NDLOVU: We had left him behind in the shop.

ADV DE JAGER: So he wasn't present even?

MR NDLOVU: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see his parents there?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you speak to them?

MR NDLOVU: Yes. When we walked in, if I am still correct, of which I think I am, there was someone making tea.

ADV DE JAGER: And as far as I could see, the people being killed, was Christina, Eunice, Catherine and Melzinah. Were they all women?

MR NDLOVU: I was made to understand so.

ADV DE JAGER: So you weren't concerned about this - were they involved in any political struggle or were they your political enemies?

MR NDLOVU: They were not involved in any political strife. But however, I should say they fell victim because of our intended action of burning down the house and ultimately teaching Hendrik a public lesson.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, was it your intention to injure or even kill any of the occupants of Mr Hendrik Masupa's house? Was it your primary intention to do that?

MR NDLOVU: No, I swear to God in heaven, I never had intention or ill intention of hurting anyone, or injuring or killing for that matter. I never had such intention. It never occurred in my mind that as a result of those actions, the consequences will be that people will be injured and others would die.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now when you took that decision to burn the house down, did you foresee that there would be occupants in the house at the time when you decided to burn the house down with petrol?

MR NDLOVU: No, I guess we were so angry as such that we didn't reason that that would ultimately end up with a situation where people are hurt, people are dying.

JUDGE WILSON: What time was it?

MR NDLOVU: It was late, after eight, if I recall very well.

JUDGE WILSON: People are normally at home after eight, aren't they?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: And you knew, as your neighbours, that several people lived in this house, didn't you?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, when you succeeded to ultimately open the door and you ran out of the house in flames, did you close the door behind you to keep the occupants of the house inside the house as the house was burning?

MR NDLOVU: No.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did any of your co-assailants do that to your knowledge? Did you see anyone closing the door behind?

MR NDLOVU: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Did any of you do anything to help the people get out of the burning house?

MR NDLOVU: To my knowledge, no, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndlovu, wasn't the whole object of your comrades, as you have stated it on page 5 of your application, there was - to create a revolutionary people's war and in the November of 1985 issue of Sheshaba, the monthly journal of the African National Congress

stated that:

And then you continue and say you reacted to this command.

MR NDLOVU: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: So didn't you intend to kill policemen, for instance, living there, and stooges and informers?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't Hendrik an informer, according to you?

MR NDLOVU: He was, we perceived him as an informer, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you want to kill him?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, ultimately that was what we should have, we must have done.

ADV DE JAGER: And his family?

MR NDLOVU: His family had nothing to do with it.

ADV DE JAGER: So and his family's property? Did that have anything to do with it?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, it was a general norm that where, even when - even knowingly that I made the - someone who is not responsible for the household of my own, of my parents, but when I have crossed the line or ultimately regarded as having informed on people in their progressive struggle, I would be punished that way too. My household would be burnt. If I were a cop, my wife and my kids as well, their lives were in danger.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there any differentiation about policemen or would any policeman be killed?

MR NDLOVU: Any policeman who was rendered to be an enemy of the people, because they were working for the white system. On those bases there was no discrimination, should I say, of who it was. Unless of course, it is known that it is someone from outside and he is working for this side, but all cops were rendered to be people who are assisting to enforce the apartheid.

ADV DE JAGER: And should be eliminated?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: You said you went, the argument started about change.

MR NDLOVU: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And what in fact was then, how did it develop, how did you come to accuse him of something else?

MR NDLOVU: It is the utterances, M'Lord, of Hendrik, that led to this being unveiled.

ADV DE JAGER: So the policeman walking out and being there, that didn't trigger off the thing, it was a later argument?

MR NDLOVU: We were, we were shocked by this but we really didn't question this until such time as he himself boasted and become over pompous that he knows our hide-outs, in the cars that we sleep in and our description, they know who are we. And that in itself provoked us to an extent that we should see that it really isn't just a matter that should be left hanging. We need to deal with this once and for all. So as to show others as well that informing on us, it is punishable by the sentences that are very severe.

ADV DE JAGER: But what was the sentence in this case, the severe sentence?

MR NDLOVU: Was to burn down the house that Hendrik grew in.

ADV DE JAGER: And was there a sitting of the people's court to come to that decision?

MR NDLOVU: No, the people's court had not sat, it was a decision that we take as leadership.

ADV DE JAGER: So without a court ...(intervention)

MR NDLOVU: And there are cases - excuse me?

ADV DE JAGER: Without a court sitting?

MR NDLOVU: Without the court sitting. There are instances, M'Lord, where there is no necessity of coming to a court of

that nature. We usually take initiatives as people who have been vested with power to deal with a situation like this, as they arise.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the café when you had this argument?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the café when you had this argument with Hendrik?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, there were several people, but I can't recall who were they.

ADV DE JAGER: Some of his family or his gang staying with him?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, his gang members were outside and the other members who usually work in the shop and those who would come to buy.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any of the people sitting over there, present?

MR NDLOVU: No, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: But you say opposite this place, so I presume, you know the people working there and you could give their names to us?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: You could give the names of the persons in the café, you were staying there, just opposite the street.

MR NDLOVU: Give names?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

MR NDLOVU: I don't understand the question.

ADV DE JAGER: Where - how far from the café did they live?

MR NDLOVU: I should say two to 300 metres.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Did you know the people working with him in the café?

MR NDLOVU: Yes. Not by names really, but by the virtue of being in the same location together, we know who works there, but I don't know their location, their place where they stay and what-have-you.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR CURRIN: If the Committee needs you to help them in any way in identifying any person who may be a witness, would you be quite willing to render your assistance?

MR NDLOVU: A witness?

MR CURRIN: If, for example, the Committee feels that there may be people who were present at the time, who may be of assistance to the Committee, would you be willing to assist in identifying people that could testify at this hearing?

MR NDLOVU: I am willing to.

MR CURRIN: If I understood your evidence correctly, about Hendrik, in the context of consumer boycotts, were you saying that Hendrik was a businessman? He did business.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he did business.

MR CURRIN: So consumer boycotts were not in his interests?

MR NDLOVU: Not at all.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, can I get some clarification. Were you against Black business people conducting businesses in Black townships?

MR NDLOVU: No, that is not the case, but however, it should be noted that people who were bringing product, it is people that we were enforcing this consumer boycott on.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you were basically opposed to trucks coming into the location to make deliveries?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: To Black entrepreneurs who were conducting businesses in Black locations?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Why was that? Where would they get things to sell otherwise?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, there had been strikes that were waged by workers in fighting for a living wage, that would ultimately give their families better living conditions, that would afford them luxury that our other counterparts were having. And they needed our support in so doing. By preventing the product to go and by workers putting tools down, that would eventually hit hard on the owner or the management thereof, of those companies, and they would have no option but to settle down and negotiate a dispute with the workers amicably.

MR CURRIN: I have no further questions.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, what is your position now?

MR BLACK: My position is that the name of Hendrik Masupa has arisen during the course of this evidence for the first time. I have in the short adjournment been in contact with Mr Masupa's employer, and every attempt is going to be made to get him to attend the hearing. I would like to first consult with Mr Masupa before putting questions to the applicant. And I will use, while waiting for Mr Masupa, I will also consult further with the victims.

JUDGE WILSON: Now I am speaking now to the victims. You are here because you are involved in what happened, and you have spent the morning listening to the evidence of the applicant. Is that correct? And I understand you have consulted with Mr Black. You will now have a further opportunity to discuss with Mr Black what questions should be put on your behalf and thereafter to listen to his

questions, and if you have any further questions you wish to put, you will be given the opportunity to do so after Mr Black has completed his questioning. Do you understand that? We now propose to adjourn. We are waiting the arrival of your relative, Hendrik Masupa, and we will adjourn till two o'clock, at the latest. If everything is ready earlier we may start earlier, not much earlier. Very well, we will now adjourn.

ON RESUMPTION:

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, are you ready to proceed?

MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Ndlovu, to begin with, I just want to find out what school you attended and up until what standard did you attend that school? Could you ...

MR NDLOVU: It is Davey High School or senior secondary.

MR BLACK: Till what ...?

MR NDLOVU: I was at school up to my form 4, that is Std 9.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, is it possible to draw the microphone closer to yourself so that perhaps you can speak with ease without having to bend.

MR BLACK: As far as Mr Hendrik Masupa is concerned, how long did you know him for?

MR NDLOVU: I should say three to four years.

MR BLACK: Excuse me. Mr Chairman, may I just clear up, I just want to clear up something with the - Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will proceed. Now from where did you know Hendrik Masupa?

MR NDLOVU: In the shops in our street, that is Mocke Street.

MR BLACK: I can't hear what you said?

MR NDLOVU: In the shops where he usually is employed.

MR BLACK: Yes, and is it also a fact that you lived across the road from where the Masupa house was situated?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I stayed there.

MR BLACK: Right. And as far as the Masupa house is concerned, is it not so that it is an ordinary four-roomed house, which you find in the township?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR BLACK: There is nothing more extravagant or - I just want to, I am having a little difficulty here with a matter and I don't seem to have any assistance here.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The house in which the Masupas lived and which you burnt down, is no different to any other of the township houses there, it's not more extravagant, it is no bigger. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR BLACK: And as far as the Masupas who lived in that house is concerned, and who were the victims and whose children and relatives were killed, they, I put it to you, lived an ordinary life-style, they were not much wealthier or poorer than the people living around them, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: From my assumption, that wouldn't be so, because they happened to be part of the mainstream of people who owned shops and shebeens around.

MR BLACK: Well, let me put it to you this way. Who owned the shopping complex, where this dispute arose?

MR NDLOVU: I take it that is Mr Masupa's relative....

MR BLACK: Sydney, it is the grandfather of say Hendrik Masupa. ...(tape ends)

MR BLACK: ... at the time that the house was burning, I will put it to you, and if necessary, evidence, we will lead evidence to that effect, were not any wealthier than any of the other people living around. They didn't own that shop and were not part of the recipients of any proceeds of that shop. So you base your assumption on the fact that because Mr - the elder Mr Masupa, the grandfather, owned the shop, therefore everybody was better off. Is that what you are saying?

MR NDLOVU: I happen to know that we usually take care of our family as the immediate and the others as well.

MR BLACK: Okay. We will come to that later. Did you also know that Hendrik Masupa regularly worked at the shopping complex?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR BLACK: He used to go to school and after school he used to work at that shopping complex.

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR BLACK: And did you know - okay, let's put it this way. During the course of these three years that you knew Mr Masupa, how did you get to know him? Was it, I mean, under what circumstances? Was it because you were living opposite their house or because you met him in the shop?

MR NDLOVU: Because I met him in the shop and that, that I should know of him it is because of the reports and the complaints that have been brought forward to us and the kind of attitude that it portrayed him and his cahoots when we usually conducted our operation clean-ups and thus preventing us from entering the shebeen above and getting rid of weapons that they were in possession of, our brothers who drank and afterwards.....

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I just want to clear up one aspect before - may I? Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, it is obvious that you will need time to consult with Mr Hendrik. Can't you direct your questions to what the victims would say and have a proper consultation with Hendrik and proceed on cross-examination, as far as his story is concerned, tomorrow? Unless you feel you know enough to continue with the cross-examination now.

MR BLACK: Yes, Sir. I can proceed with some of the cross-examination. The only difficulty is that Mr Masupa, Mr Hendrik Masupa wasn't present in court throughout and he was implicated and he keeps on, issues keep on coming up. But perhaps to finish off on this line and then I will proceed towards the house issue.

Mr Ndlovu, let me put it to you this way, that this sweeping statement of yours that Mr Hendrik Masupa had problems with the community or with your comrades, let us put it that way, by preventing them in the shops, from carrying weapons and removing weapons, he denies that and he will deny it under oath.

I will also put it to you that as far as your allegation made earlier, that on an occasion he was disciplined by the people's court, and lashes were administered to him, is also a lie and not true. According to Mr Hendrik Masupa.

MR NDLOVU: That he had a problem with us as comrades, I don't know why he is denying that and as of administering lashes, probably the time we had meted out many disciplinary measures and probably my memory is not serving me well, but in one form or another we did hand out a disciplinary measure to Mr Masupa, and that is why it was felt at that point in time that we need to do something that would bring his senses around.

JUDGE WILSON: So you now say you are not sure that you administered lashes to him. Is that what I am to understand?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, I am saying it is in my view that we had, but if in his view there was never anything of that

nature, then it must have meant that we did handle a case with Mr Masupa and a disciplinary measure was meted out, be it lashes or the other form of disciplinary matters, I think that is where I am having a problem.

MR BLACK: Yes.

MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't deny that as Mr Masupa is saying, that there were no lashes at that point in time. It could have been another form really.

MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Ndlovu, did Mr Masupa ever appear before the people's court in Russia?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he did.

MR BLACK: Thanks, Mr Chairman. Those are some of the questions which I just want to hold, to stand down for a while, for further consultation.

I will put it to you that the reason why you went to burn the house where the Masupa household lives, is because of this dispute which occurred in the café, between your, the people who were with you and Mr Masupa, relating to the question of change. And I will demonstrate to you, and it will be alleged that you and your friends entered that café and caused trouble, you administered lashes, sjamboks and disturbing the customers, and you were told to leave. Did that happen?

MR NDLOVU: In my correct, in my memory, what I understand is that whilst the problem arose between Mr Masupa and one of my comrades, Mr Mahlangu, it came to my sense that I should try and bring Mr Mahlangu to line and yes, I remember now that I even took out a sjambok and showed Mr Mahlangu that ultimately if he causes trouble, he will be sjambokked, but upon Mr Masupa's insistence and utterances then it went out of hand and it developed into something that would not warrant me to give away my comrade.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now Mr Ndlovu, I am going to demonstrate to this Committee that what you are saying is you are being very economical on the truth, as it were, with the truth. But I will return to the disturbances at the shop and the allegations which you have made about Mr Masupa at a later stage.

What I want to ask of you, is were you after all these years of knowing Mr Masupa and that he worked there, that he actually slept at that shop? He used to sleep at the shop.

MR NDLOVU: I wasn't aware of that.

MR BLACK: Yes. Because he will testify that he used to sleep upstairs and his grandfather used to take him to school in the morning and he would then return to work in the shop. Now the burning down of the Masupa house, did that receive the ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: ...Mr Black, do you deny this or is it the truth or don't you know?

MR NDLOVU: That he was sleeping in the shop?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

MR NDLOVU: No, I didn't carry knowledge of that.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you went to attack the place where his head rests, that is where he sleeps. Isn't that so? That's how I understood you.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's how I and my comrades, we believed that's where he sleeps.

ADV DE JAGER: But you didn't know where he is sleeping. So you don't know whether he slept in the shop?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, I should point to you that two of my comrades were in the same street with Mr Masupa, and I was in the next street and the others were in the street following me. So that knowledge really came through my

comrades as such. So I wouldn't know that at the time he was no longer sleeping at home.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought you said in your evidence, when I asked you some questions, that Hendrik did not live there? That he was 23 to 26 years of age and did not live in that house. That's what you told me.

MR NDLOVU: I doubt it, M'Lord. You asked me as to whether Hendrik was present then and I answered that no, we had left him there in the shop.

JUDGE WILSON: No, that is not what I asked you. I asked you his age and you said his age. I then asked you if he lived there. You said Hendrik did not live there, it was his father's house, his family lived there. You didn't say anything about leaving him at the shop.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I remember, M'Lord, I answered to the effect that there had been a culture that had been created amongst us as comrades, that even if it meant that an informer or a police wife or his kids, for that matter, were present at the time, then whatever happened then, would be looked in in a broader context, that it was the elimination of the bad. Because it is either you are with us or you are not with us. That's the answer I must have given you, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: It was not.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think we may have to look at the - or listen to the recording. My understanding was certainly that he always said that Hendrik slept at the house of his grandfather. That is as far as he knew, that was where Hendrik slept and that was his evidence throughout, according to my recollection and the notes that I have got.

JUDGE WILSON: But what he went on to say, Mr Currin, which

you may remember, is where he grew up, that was his place. That is why we took this decision, that he regarded the place where his head rested as the place where he had grown up. Carry on.

MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now I have now only had the opportunity of looking at the court record, very briefly, but is it correct that one of your co-accused at the hearing was Mr Lazarus Motsamai?

MR NDLOVU: Lazarus Motsamai, that's correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Was he one of the group of the people who went to help burn down the Masupa house?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now Lazarus Motsamai is a friend of Hendrik Masupa. Do you know that?

MR NDLOVU: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And Hendrik would say, will testify, if necessary, that on a number of occasions, more than one occasion, Lazarus Motsamai actually slept at the shop in the complex where Hendrik slept and he knew that Hendrik slept at that shopping complex.

MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't know.

MR BLACK: Okay. I just want to proceed to the burning of the house. Your actions in burning down the house of the Masupas, was those actions approved of by the comrades?

MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't understand that actions ...?

MR BLACK: Your actions which you carried out that night, in going and burning down the house of the Masupas, was that approved of by the comrades? Was that within their policy, did they approve of it in that area?

MR NDLOVU: It was not just a matter of approving. It was a culture that has been with us comrades that the severest

punishment that could be meted out to people who were not co-operative or who were collaborators, stooges and informers, et cetera, would be either to burn the house or to necklace that person in particular.

MR BLACK: The question is again: your actions of that evening or that night, were they approved of by the comrades or by any organisation, in burning down that house?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, they were approved.

MR BLACK: Okay. Well, then I would like you to explain why is it then that the comrades, the true comrades of that area, assisted the police in effecting the arrests of the parties who participated in the burning of that house?

MR NDLOVU: I should say that as indicated before, that in Russia we were in leadership and what happened thereof, this gave way to this collaboration of gangsters who had long been suppressed, because they wouldn't do their function, Masupa, Hendrik and his friends, and the security branch. They in fact intimidated some of our comrades to partake in effecting arrests on fellow comrades. That was how this happened. They were manipulated into believing what was done was something that was out of the context of their comradely duties and furthermore, that being - some of them being minors as it is indicated with the people that I was arrested with, and they were therefore easily intimidated by this conspiracy or ...(indistinct) for that matter.

MR BLACK: Well, let me tell you what happened, according to my instructions. After the house had been burnt down, or burnt rather, and the comrades arrived at the house, known comrades in that area arrived at the house, together with Mr - the accused number 6, Eliasa Ratane. Do you know about that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I know Mr Eliasa Ratane.

MR BLACK: Yes. But do you know that the comrades arrived there, had arrested and caught this man and brought him to the Masupa house?

MR NDLOVU: Some comrades who were minors at the time yes, they were bullied into partaking in that arrest, intimidated by the police and the gangsters that were involved at the time, who had to benefit everything by us being arrested.

MR BLACK: Are you saying therefore that those comrades who brought one of your co-accused to the house and disapproved of it, of what had taken place, are you saying those people were either not true comrades or that they were intimidated or collaborators with the police? Is that what you are saying?

MR NDLOVU: They were intimidated, yes, that's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: What time did they bring this person to the house, Mr Black, do you know?

MR BLACK: At about two o'clock in the afternoon, the next day, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, were the police present when Ratane was brought to the house by the comrades?

MR BLACK: No, Mr Chairman. What happened was the comrades had heard about this. I will go into further consultations in detail and get names, if necessary. They sought out these people who they could find and they brought accused number 6 in the original trial, to the house. The police were not present. And they wanted to leave the Mr Ratane there under some security, and one of the comrades said well, let us rather call the police, and they summoned the police to the house. That is what I gather, what I can clarify. But what I am getting at, do you know Aubrey,

a comrade by the name of Aubrey?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I know comrade Aubrey.

MR BLACK: Yes. Is he also intimidated or a sell-out?

MR NDLOVU: In fact, comrade Aubrey was corrupt.

MR BLACK: Corrupt?

MR NDLOVU: There had been a power struggle within the ranks of comrades and comrade Aubrey saw this as an opportunity to seize power and I think he used it to the best of his ability.

MR BLACK: Saw what to seize power?

MR NDLOVU: Seize power that he be at the helm of the leadership of the liberated zone Russia.

MR BLACK: But what did he use to seize power?

MR NDLOVU: Every opportunity that arose like this one, he would want to make the most of it.

MR BLACK: In what way?

MR NDLOVU: That he should influence comrades badly, he should create division.

MR BLACK: So it was an internal power struggle?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, there was a power struggle. It did give a bit of resistance in this direction ...(intervention)

MR BLACK: So he wasn't collaborating or intimidated by the police?

MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated, that he is corrupt. He saw this as an opportunity to climb the ladder of leadership.

MR BLACK: Corrupt in what sense? That is what I am trying to get at. You are saying ... (intervention).

MR NDLOVU: Corrupt in a sense that he created division amongst comrades.

MR BLACK: Yes.

MR NDLOVU: He wanted to be at the helm of of the leadership of comrades, and the problem is, with people like comrade Aubrey, they are the people who want to stand out there and give instructions and they cannot go down and toil with the masses. Firstly, you wouldn't get him in operation clean-ups, he wouldn't involve himself in that. When it was time to deal with gangsters, members that you know you are putting your life at risk in dealing with, he wouldn't put his life in danger. But he was the kind of leadership that would want to stand out there, issue instruction, at the end of the day and go and sleep in the comfort of his home.

MR BLACK: Okay.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he in fact seize the leadership?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord, I gather immediately after police had intimidated the other minors, he was at the forefront of this so-called comrades who had been involved in this manhunt or whatever.

JUDGE WILSON: But did he remain as the leader of the comrades in that area?

MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, it didn't take long before things went to where they were supposed to. It took only three months. In September, right after we had spent some time in trial, the whole thing went back and there were no longer comrades but it was now a gangster called Ninjas. So apparently he shot himself in the legs, because the whole thing now backfired against him, and there was no longer a comradeship for that matter.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, who was the leader of the comrades in your area, prior to the 2nd of July?

MR NDLOVU: Myself, Absalom Kubela, Patrick Mashang and Elias Ratane.

MR BLACK: May I continue? Thanks. So Elias Ratane was one of the leaders?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: And you are aware of the fact that he was caught and handed over to the police by comrades?

MR NDLOVU: All I am aware of is that he was arrested by a combination of police and those gang members and yes, some comrades.

MR BLACK: You keep on saying gang members. What gang members are you talking about?

MR NDLOVU: There was a gang member, there was a gangster, in fact, that was aligned with the situation in the tavern above, where Hendrik used, his buddies in fact, who used to come to him for liquor and who would defend him in many ways, who would be involved rather in quelling that we should enforce a consumer boycott. There was this gangster called Bambos Splash.

MR BLACK: Who?

MR NDLOVU: Bambos Splash.

MR BLACK: Okay. I will make enquiries about that. To get to the Masupa household. I put it to you that you forced a person to drive you to a garage or wherever, to collect petrol and to fill a five litre can of petrol. Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Forced, I don't believe. We requested someone to ferry us to the fuel station.

MR BLACK: But there are different ways of requesting one. Did he have a choice?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he had a choice.

MR BLACK: Okay. It is a Mr Sibisi.

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And was he present when the burning took place?

MR NDLOVU: No, he was not.

MR BLACK: No. And you also, as far as the burning is concerned, I will put it to you, the evidence is - well, let's just paint a picture. This is a four-bedroomed house with a door entrance to the kitchen and a door to one of the ...(intervention)

MR CURRIN: I think my learned friend means a four-roomed house.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, he said before an ordinary four-roomed house. It has now become a four-bedroomed house.

MR BLACK: No, it is a four-roomed house. There is a door to the kitchen and there's an entrance door, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: The meter box which is referred to, that is referred to as a meter box, that controls the lights inside the house, is situated outside the house, is that so?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Yes. The evidence of one of the victims will be to the effect that they were all gathered, the parties inside were gathered watching TV, the lights suddenly went off, darkness. There was the door was opened and the name Manta was called out. Let's stop there.

MR NDLOVU: We approached the house and we knocked and a voice from inside said come in and we went in.

JUDGE WILSON: Were the lights on?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord, the lights were on because I could see that someone was making tea. I just can't recall who was it, who was making tea.

ADV DE JAGER: And the TV?

MR NDLOVU: We entered through the kitchen. I wouldn't see whether the TV was on in that room or whatever, living room.

MR BLACK: If I may just complete that. Give a clearer picture. The parties were sitting watching television, the lights went off and then somebody came in and then the lights went on again, when people had entered the house.

MR NDLOVU: I don't understand the question.

MR BLACK: In other words, the evidence will be of the victims that they were sitting there watching television, when suddenly their lights went off, the whole house's lights. In other words the main switch outside the house must have gone off. People entered, the lights went on. Then there was some, a voice called out "Manta".

MR NDLOVU: When we walked in the house was, there was light inside the house. I wouldn't know if the lights did fall before we gained entrance ...

MR BROWN: Mr Chairman could I just indicate that there was plenty of evidence at the trial about what happened, how they got access to the house, the Judge actually found that there was a knock on the door, somebody said who is there and they said comrades. That was a finding, but be that as it may, there is exhausted evidence on the record of the trial as to how they got in and what happened when they were in the house.

And broadly speaking, we haven't contested that. Now if we are going into a retrial about the detail of how they got into the house and what happened when they were in the house, then I think we're obviously going to have to prepare ourselves in a different way.

But broadly speaking we haven't contested the generality of that evidence and of the court record. The only aspect which we've contested is the question of the motive.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you call the name Mantha.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was Mantha?

MR NDLOVU: It was Hendrik's sister.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you call the name, or who called the name?

MR NDLOVU: Mashavu called the name.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mantha respond?

MR NDLOVU: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Was she there?

MR NDLOVU: Later it appeared, she was.

ADV DE JAGER: Was she injured or killed in the event?

MR NDLOVU: She died in the event.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, with regard to your objection, is the version the accused, the applicant is giving us, the version that appears in the record?

MR CURRIN: Broadly, with regard to their access to the house and what happened in the house, broadly speaking, it is the same version that is in the record, the trial, the only aspect which we have really, I suppose one can say, put in dispute, is the way in which the motive and the participation of the comrades, the conflict which they had with Hendrik was totally depoliticized.

Outside of that, we are really not contesting the detail of the evidence that was submitted at the trial.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, does Mr Black have possession of the record you are referring to?

MR CURRIN: He does have the record and if he were to look at the judgement, the very first page the Judge there deals with how they got access to the house and what happened and it is broadly speaking the evidence that has been given now, but clearly if one is going to go into detail and ask very specific questions, I am sure that there is going to be a slightly different version and there, because we are talking about something that happened a long time ago.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to go into any detail, unnecessary detail. I disagree, I haven't - I have read the evidence and I have consulted with the victims, that evidence I have read. I disagree with what my learned friend says as to broadly speaking, as to how they entered the house and what happened in the house conforms with the evidence given by the applicant. I must disagree.

I can highlight the issues which I wish to highlight because I intend Mr Masupa is going to request that he give evidence and I don't want, I wouldn't, I assume my learned friend would also be understanding in that regard and not subject him to unnecessary cross-examination.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, it is common cause they have entered the house, it is common cause that they created the fire or the burning. What would be relevant is what was said by the comrades and what they accused the people inside of, because that is relevant as far as the motive is concerned, so could we see whether we could get any information on that basis?

MR BLACK: Thank you. I was getting to that. As far as I just want to place in dispute the evidence given by the applicant, as far as the gaining of entry into the house. What I did omit and what I think is quite an important Mr Masupa confirms it with me, that there was a knock, people said who is there and they said comrades, which I think is relevant.

And then what happened inside the house, Mantha's name was called, she is in fact Christina Masupa, is she not? Is that so?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's right.

MR BLACK: Yes. Now Christina is the brother of Godfrey Masupa.

JUDGE WILSON; Christina is the brother of Godfrey?

MR BLACK: I mean Christina is the sister to Godfrey Masupa, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Who is Godfrey, Mr Black? Who is Godfrey Masupa?

MR BLACK: Godfrey Masupa is one of the victims, that was inside the house. And her mother is Elinale Masupa, is that correct? Christina's mother?

MR NDLOVU: I gather so.

MR BLACK: And Christina was also active in politics at school, is that not so?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR BLACK: She was in fact regarded as a comrade?

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR BLACK: I put it to you that you entered the house, there was none of this discussions which you've testified about which took place between you and the occupants of the house, in other words by that I mean this evidence which you've given like trying to persuade them to leave the house, explaining what you were going to do as you've given evidence. No such discussions took place or attempts were made by you.

MR NDLOVU: It did take place and as a result of that, as I've testified that during that process, I had to extinguish matchsticks that were being thrown to the floor so as to burn the house, not foreseeing that as a result of that people could die and people need to be evacuated first.

MR BLACK: Did you make this clear at the trial?

MR NDLOVU: Come again?

MR BLACK: Did you testify to that effect at the trial, can you remember that you telling the court?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is in my trial record that I extinguished match sticks.

MR BLACK: And that you persuaded, tried to persuade the people to get out?

MR NDLOVU: I think it is all there in the trial record.

MR BLACK: Well, I will have to have a closer look at that. ADV DE JAGER: Can't copies of this trial record be prepared before we adjourn so that we could have a look at it tonight, please?

MR BLACK: I will speak to the logistics people in Johannesburg and I hope we will be able to. It is in fact, it consists of the evidence, the evidence section consists of two volumes.

JUDGE WILSON How long, how many pages?

MR BLACK: It is 165, yes and I, but I think the judgement would be, I haven't had an opportunity of reading the judgement. If we may proceed, thanks.

I put it to you that Mr Masupa, Godfrey Masupa who was inside the house will deny that there was this discussion as you say, or attempts made to evacuate the house.

MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before, there were two people in the kitchen and I spoke to them, informing them of our intensions and whilst I was speaking to them, as I have indicated that it is in the record that I had to deal with the anger of my comrade, and seeing that they didn't foresee that as an end result of their actions at the time, we would all have been dead right inside.

ADV DE JAGER: Who were the two people in the kitchen?

MR NDLOVU: I cannot recall, but it was people of the opposite gender, females, I gather ...

ADV DE JAGER: Was Mantha there, Christina, you knew her, she was a comrade?

MR NDLOVU: Come again sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know Christina, she was a comrade?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, but it wasn't her in the kitchen.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, Godfrey, do you know him?

MR NDLOVU: Godfrey, yes I know him.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he in the kitchen?

MR NDLOVU: No, he wasn't in the kitchen.

ADV DE JAGER: Any other people sitting there, were they in the kitchen?

MR NDLOVU: It was elderly people what I could recall.

ADV DE JAGER: They are all elderly sitting over there, were they in the kitchen or not, one of them or two of them? You said that there were two people in the kitchen?

MR NDLOVU: If my memory still serve me well, it could well be my mother with the white, but I am not certain if it is her.

JUDGE WILSON: The white headrest you mean?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, but I am not certain of that. It could well be her, because it was elderly people who was in the kitchen at the time.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you ask Hendrik.

MR BLACK: Yes, that - I've ascertained who was in the kitchen.

JUDGE WILSON: Who is the person sitting there with the white headrest?

MR BLACK: Yes, I am about to. She was one of the people in the kitchen and her name is Elinale Masupa, and she was in fact - that is her house.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know that it is her house?

MR NDLOVU: I know.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Well, let me put it to you Mr Ndlovu, Mrs Masupa that is Elinale, was in the kitchen the owner of the house. You called Mantha's name out, because you knew her and she came to the kitchen. Is that not so?

MR NDLOVU: No, not according to my recollection of what happened on that night.

MR BLACK: Well, the evidence she came to the kitchen, as she came to the kitchen, she saw fuel and she ran back to tell the other people in the house.

MR NDLOVU: As I've said, I had a very difficult situation to deal with. As I have indicated at one hand I would have to extinguish sticks of match fire. Even if she had approached or accosted the kitchen, I would have noticed her at that time.

MR BLACK: Okay, I will clear it up for your sake, I will speak to her.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, just - I am sorry to interpose Mr Black, why did you not ask for Mantha in order to advise her to persuade her people to leave the house?

MR NDLOVU: As she had been called earlier and I was of the opinion that she was going to help in that process, but probably what took me off, it is seeing those kind of situations that we were in already. I had fuel over me and we were all side that place and we were all inside that place and as a result the stove had made, I think it created a state of panic in them and whilst I was dealing with the situation of trying to extinguish those match sticks that had been lit in this very dangerous situation. It probably must have slipped my mind of all the kind of pressures in that situation that I found myself at the time.

JUDGE WILSON: Were you fellows all drunk?

MR NDLOVU: No Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: You had gone to the house to persuade the people, as I understand it, to leave the house and you were then going to burn it down.

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Yet, as soon as you get into the house, while you were trying to talk to people, they start throwing matches around?

MR NDLOVU: And petrol. And petrol.

JUDGE WILSON: And petrol, they throw petrol all over the floor and then start throwing matches all around.

MR NDLOVU: My Lord, the way we were so angry, it is to a degree that we would have in the process even killed ourselves as I could recollect as to how the events of the day happened, as indicated in the trial record. At one stage I had to deal with the situation and on the other one would be doing that realising of course there is fuel on the floor and notwithstanding the fact that the door behind, its door lock had broken and we are locked inside, all of us.

JUDGE WILSON: That is what I can't understand you see Mr

Ndlovu, any normal, sober person going to a house, pouring petrol over the floor before they have made arrangements to evacuate the house and then throwing matches into the petrol.

MR NDLOVU: As I was busy doing that, my Lord, as I was talking to the occupants, it so happened that, it is then that I realised I that fuel had already been poured and I was in that.

JUDGE WILSON; Yes, and your colleagues had poured fuel onto your leg too. Were they drunk?

MR NDLOVU: No, my Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, why did they behave in this way? Can you give any rational explanation?

MR NDLOVU: I think my Lord, a rational explanation of that would be that they felt that it had come to the time

that people who behaved like Hendrik, should see that they might demean us and do whatever they feel like doing, but at the end, we will definitely punish them.

JUDGE WILSON: Hendrik was not there, there were two elderly women in the kitchen with you and your friends. They were the people you were going to punish by burning it while they were standing there, weren't they?

MR NDLOVU: My Lord, it is true that Hendrik wasn't there and the objective that we sought to achieve was to burn down the house. However...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. So why did your friends start throwing matches around before you had arranged for these older people to leave the house?

MR NDLOVU: The only logical explanation I could give my Lord is that I think the kind of offence that Mr Masupa had committed and the kind of anger that they, the state of

anger in which they were in, made them to behave rather irrationally because even our lives as well, were in danger at the moment in time.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they go there in fact to kill these people?

MR NDLOVU: No, my Lord, we had no such intentions.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, had you discussed with your comrades that you would try and get the people out of the house before you set fire on it?

MR NDLOVU: Honestly speaking, what we agreed upon is that we are going to burn down the house. That was our intention, we did not foresee that there would be an end result that would lead to people's death.

JUDGE WILSON: You were, these people were your neighbours

Mr Ndlovu, you told us. They lived across the road from you. You knew there were several people in the house, did you never think of them, their safety?

MR NDLOVU: My Lord, as I have indicated, the first primary responsibility that I sought to achieve at the moment in time, was to get them evacuated, but unfortunately my Lord, I don't know what happened to the reasoning capacity of my minor comrades, or fellow comrades at the point in time, that it lead to an extent that at that point in time, I had to act swiftly and try and extinguish those sticks that were being thrown into the fuel to ignite and set fire on the house.

MS KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Ndlovu, would it be fair to therefore assume that your comrades intended to have the occupants of the house burn down to death? You as the leader had not given specific instructions that no live was

to be lost, that only the house was to be burnt down.

MR NDLOVU: I gathered, when we said that the house was to be burnt down, it was meant, it meant the house as in the property and human life was something that we valued as well and we wouldn't want people to lose their lives. That is why we even resorted in operation clean ups to try and rid our community of weapons that they used to maim and kill one another, week after week as a result ...

JUDGE WILSON: I am getting a little tired of your political speeches Mr Ndlovu. We are interested in your actions that evening and what you did and why you did this that evening. Do you understand?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, my Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Who bought the petrol?

MR NDLOVU: We bought the petrol.

JUDGE WILSON: Who paid for it?

MR NDLOVU: The money was in possession of comrade Gobela.

JUDGE WILSON: He paid for it?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, he paid for it.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, who lit the match stick which resulted in this tragic event?

MR NDLOVU: It is Mahlanga.

MS KHAMPEPE: Where is Mr Mahlanga presently?

MR NDLOVU: He has since been granted amnesty in 1992, he is outside.

MR BLACK: While we are in the kitchen at this preparatory state, I take my learned friend's point, it is not cross-examination, but you have, you see, I put it to you that you in your evidence, let me put it this way, there was this elderly lady in the kitchen. Mantha came to the kitchen

because she was called there, her name was called.

She saw the fuel scattered on the floor, she screamed and ran back into the house to warn the people and then the fire went up, then the fire started.

MR NDLOVU: The fire started after a while, after having had to deal with those sticks of matches that were lit and as to that Mantha was called, yes, that is correct, she was called and I had already indicated to the elderly people who were in the kitchen, that you need to go out, evacuate because we are going, we came, we have come here to burn down this house.

Hendrik has ultimately committed a crime to us as comrades that is punishable by this severe punishment that we need to meet out. As I was busy relating to the elderly people, I heard a sound, obviously when you light a match it

makes a sound, and upon that I turned to find that the stick was burning.

I extinguished it and informed my comrades, no, we need to take people out first and as I have indicated the stove was hot, probably it was because it is winter months and stoves usually are hot at the time and the heat was making the atmosphere in the kitchen unbearable because it was kind of making the petrol to foam so to speak, to smell all over the kitchen.

And while I was doing that, probably it is then that Christina approached the kitchen, I wouldn't say.

MR BLACK: One of the elderly people who was in the kitchen is present here and is hearing your evidence. And I will consult further with her about what you are saying, but at the short time at my disposal and having looked through the record, your evidence in the record very briefly, and I may

well have missed this, but I certainly don't see anything in your evidence that was given earlier on at the trial that you had a discussion with the persons in the kitchen and that you made attempts to have them evacuated.

I don't find it anywhere on this record at this stage. I will examine it more closely tonight, if I am given that opportunity. Instead what I find is a very brief reason of as to how you got burnt, and why the fire went up. All I have, all that I can manage to trace is that you said that Mr Mahlangu struck the match at an inappropriate time and that is how you got trapped in the house.

MR NDLOVU: That is how all of us got trapped in the house, we were all trapped.

MR BLACK: My instructions from the victims is that your comrades actually closed that kitchen door, pulled it closed

behind them when they went out when the fire, while the house was on fire and that is how you got trapped. You got left behind unfortunately.

MR NDLOVU: No.

MR BLACK: Okay.

MR NDLOVU: When comrade Maqlanga struck the match, we were all inside. The problem with the door, as I indicated, it had broken so this kind of door that you have a piece of....

MR BLACK: A bolt?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, a lever that could use to open the door and it had broken in a very inappropriate way that you need to put your finger and to open it, you have to squeeze hard and that goes with pain, but ...

ADV DE JAGER: Did you leave the house through the same door where you entered the house?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we left the house in the very same door.

ADV DE JAGER: And you've now demonstrated that this door had a latch?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you are using the sort of pin attached to the straight part to open and close it?

MR NDLOVU: I used my finger, because ...

ADV DE JAGER; Yes, the ordinary one. It is like a pin with a small ...

MR NDLOVU: Yes, with something inside.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, how did you close it if it hadn't had the small pin?

MR NDLOVU: Close?

ADV DE JAGER: How did you lock the latch?

MR NDLOVU: Close as we get in?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, after you got in, somebody closed it and locked it?

MR NDLOVU: It - to my mind, I was in front, but I think he just pushed it, because it doesn't necessarily mean you have to hold the handle to close it. It is the kind of doors that whenever you push it, it has a smaller hole and when it moves here, it would go to the end where the pin must go in.

ADV DE JAGER: No, then I have misunderstood the mechanism of the whole thing. But it is not that important.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you leave the house in the company of your companions or did they go out first?

MR NDLOVU: I was the first to get out my Lord.

MR BLACK: Mr Ndlovu, the owner, the lady of the house is present, as I've said and she will explain fully to the court about this issue of the doors. That it is denied - I

am just putting it to you now in fairness - she denies that that door handle was defective or as you have described to the court. It was in working order, the doors were closed and pulled closed after you comrades had run out and you were unfortunately trapped.

MR NDLOVU: No, that is not the case and I had to squeeze my finger very tight to open up ... (tape ends)

MR BLACK: ... clarify that issue more and come back to you on that. But let me put it to you, going back slightly again, perhaps I can put it to you tomorrow, but at this stage, after the incident which took place and I will elaborate on this incident tomorrow after Mr Hendrik Masupa has given more detailed instructions and had the opportunity of reading your evidence, after that incident at the shopping complex, you - your group resolved to go and burn

down the Masupa house, is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: The next scenario is that your group go and approach a Mr Sibisi, according to you you made a request to him that he take you to go and fetch petrol.

MR NDLOVU: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You then went and fetched petrol, you paid for it - a five litre plastic can of petrol. And then drove back to Mr Masupa's house, is that so? On your way back to the house, you actually have to pass the shopping complex where Mr Hendrik Masupa works and where the incident, altercation took place, is that not so?

MR NDLOVU: No, that is not so.

MR BLACK: Okay. How long did ...

ADV DE JAGER: Is that not so, didn't you pass the shop again?

MR NDLOVU: After having got fuel, no.

MR BLACK: Then how long did this take you to go and get a plastic can, then to go and find the person with the car and then to take you to buy the fuel?

MR NDLOVU: It could be plus minus 10 minutes.

MR BLACK: 10 Minutes? Okay. Now, I've broadly put it to you that it will be denied that you had discussions with the inmates of the house or attempted to get them evacuated, okay. After this burning of the house, what happened then?

MR NDLOVU: I ran out to (indistinct) the place, because I was in flames as well and those who had not suffered burn injuries, helped me extinguish the fire on me and I had suffered burn wounds quite considerably on my legs. And they were starting to stiffen up. We went back to Mr Sibisi in the car and he drove to his home and from there we knew

that the Security Branch was on our trial now.

We dispersed and agreed to run away from the Security Branch.

MR BLACK: Yes, and you told Mr Sibisi against his will, to take you to, or you requested him, if you want to even use that word, to take you to Lydenburg?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

MR BLACK: Now, ...

ADV DE JAGER: Did he agree or didn't he agree to take you to Lydenburg?

MR NDLOVU: He agreed, my Lord.

INTERPRETER: (The speaker's mike is not on)

ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact go to Lydenburg?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did go to Lydenburg.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you go to Lydenburg?

MR NDLOVU: A day after the incident.

ADV DE JAGER: But Lydenburg is about 300 kilometres from Daveyton?

MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't know, but I presume so my Lord, it is far away.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you come to the hospital where the other people were?

MR NDLOVU: After my arrest my Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you treated at Lydenburg?

MR NDLOVU: No, I wasn't treated my Lord, I couldn't do that because upon reaching us the destination, the news had spread like a, I don't know and it was very, it was a situation whereby I couldn't trust any doctor for that matter to help me because he might have as well had me apprehended to the police for that matter.

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you the only one who went to Lydenburg

or did your co-assailants ...

MR NDLOVU: We were three.

MS KHAMPEPE: And who was with you?

MR NDLOVU: It was Elias Ratone and Absalom Gobela. No my Lord, I am making an error, it was not Elias Ratone it was myself and Lazarus Matsomaye and Absalom Gobela.

ADV DE JAGER: Was arrested by your fellow comrades?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: It was who - Absalom Gobela and who?

MR NDLOVU: And Lazarus Matsomai.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, were you aware at that stage that Mr Ratone had been taken to the house by the comrades?

MR NDLOVU: No, I wasn't aware.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you leave for Lydenburg, what time? Still during the night or when?

MR NDLOVU: My Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: Just after the burning of the house, still during the night or when?

MR NDLOVU: We stayed the night and apparently we left in the morning if my memory still serves me well. Because I remember I couldn't sleep, so I asked for some Aspirins due to the injuries that I had and I couldn't move on that said day.

ADV DE JAGER: Where were you sleeping, at your house?

MR NDLOVU: No, in a hideout my Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: In the veld?

MR NDLOVU: No, in another section.

JUDGE WILSON: Where, in whose house?

MR NDLOVU: In one of our friends', in one of people who were comrade friendly I should say so we regarded him as a friend, he gave us ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well, who was it?

MR NDLOVU: I can't recall his name, my Lord, all I know is that it is in the - it is next to Madona, it is a section that is just above our section.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you often use this house?

MR NDLOVU: Pardon?

ADV DE JAGER: This hideout, did you often use this hideout?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you knew the owner?

MR NDLOVU: How did I know the owner?

ADV DE JAGER: Well, did you know him?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, we knew him.

ADV DE JAGER: And now all of a sudden you've forgotten his name?

MR NDLOVU: My Lord, it is a long time ago.

ADV DE JAGER: No.

MR NDLOVU: I can remember the house and the place where it is, but the name really I would be lieing if I say I recall it. I am trying to jog down my memory.

ADV DE JAGER: Isn't it perhaps that you don't want to tell us the name because you wouldn't inform on him?

MR NDLOVU: No my Lord, there is nothing like informing in this present state.

MR BLACK: While we were on that issue about Lydenburg, I put it to you that when you approached Mr Sibisi for his car, the use of his car, that you actually threatened him. Your group, you said to him, look if you don't take, if you don't let us take that car, or you don't take us in that car, we will take it ourselves to Lydenburg.

MR NDLOVU: That is an incorrect statement, because at that point in time no one of us knew how to drive. So I

wouldn't know how would we take a car then.

MR BLACK: You see, again just skimming through the - I want to clear all that up too about taking cars - but skimming through the record, evidence Mr Sibisi - he testified to that effect. Do you remember him saying that in court that he was approached and he said look I can't take you. He used the word here as "kêrels", I can't take you guys up to Lydenburg, the car is not working.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I remember. Yes, I do remember him denying that in court.

MR BLACK: I beg your pardon?

MR NDLOVU: Yes,I do remember him denying that in court.

MR BLACK: Yes, but this is what he said.

MR CURRIN: Whether they threatened the driver to take them to Lydenburg or not, I mean is that material and I would ask my learned friend to indicate how it is material

to the application, this is becoming sounding more and more like a new trial. As it relevant to the application, I ask that question.

ADV DE JAGER: We could believe your client, the applicant, that there was a political motive and that in general his credibility.

MR CURRIN: I fail to understand that, but if that is the reason, then I must ...

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, I have difficulty in understanding how you can say you fail to understand that your client's credibility is relevant to the proceedings.

MR CURRIN: No, what I am failing to understand, I understand that his credibility is relevant, what I am failing to understand is how, whether or not the person was threatened to take them to Lydenburg has an impact on his

credibility.

JUDGE WILSON: If this was a gang of young thugs going around threatening people forcing them to do it, it creates a very different picture than a political group doing something they thought they were entitled to.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, comrades spent many, many hours of many days threatening people to take them to places in their motor cars, it was common practice of comrades and if necessary I will lead evidence to that effect. Comrades did that kind of things.

ADV DE JAGER: But he is denying that they threatened him. And if Mr Sibisi would come and say I've been threatened, who should we believe?

MR CURRIN: I understand that as well and that would relate to every aspect of his evidence, so all I am saying is if we are going to go and test his evidence in that way,

it could be ongoing and I am just wondering whether it is relevant, that is all.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, just for the benefit of my learned friend. As I have indicated form the beginning, I will indicate to the Committee that in the community in which Mr Ndlovu lived, the way he behaved, the behaviour leading up to the burning, the behaviour subsequent, the threatening of people, the wielding of sjamboks would certainly not conduct for - it is the conduct of a thug, really, or criminals.

And that is what I am putting to you Mr Ndlovu, that you did threaten Mr Sibisi to take you up to Lydenburg, he didn't voluntarily ...

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, I just want to know are you saying

that the comrades would not threaten nor sjambok people in order to persuade them to do what they wanted?

MR BLACK: No, that is not what I am saying Mr Chairman. What I am saying this particular applicant and their particular behaviour in this situation, was essentially criminal in its activity and not as political as it has been portrayed.

I don't, I have no intention of cross-examining on the minute here of what took place. I just want to put it to you Mr Ndlovu, that the - you threatened Mr Sibisi to take you up to Lydenburg, he didn't do so voluntarily.

MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before to you Sir, that I am aware that it is in the record that he said so, but to my understanding no one at the time would associate with you when you were under such immense pressure. So I took it, Mr Sibisi has a responsibility as well, he might have been a father of kids and has a family at the time, so he wouldn't

want to find himself being an accomplice to whatever acts that we performed.

So I take it he had every reason to make you believe he was forced. In fact Mr Sibisi was requested to help us.

MR BLACK: All right. I just, because that wasn't sort of challenged when Mr Sibisi said he was threatened and if you take the car, if you don't take the car, we will take it and under that threat he took you people to, that's what he said. He used the word "dreigement", but okay, be that as it may.

JUDGE WILSON: Well before you go on. As you know we have not had an opportunity of reading the record, we are relying so far on what you have put. You are challenging as I understand, only that Sibisi was threatened to take

them to Lydenburg, not that he was threatened on the previous evening and as I understand the evidence which I - it doesn't seem to have been challenged, I may have misunderstood, they approached Sibisi, asked him to take them to the garage which he did, he then brought them back to the house in question and apparently waited outside while they went in and did what they did and then took them home, is that the position?

MR BLACK; No, I've also had a very short, brief look at the record, but I don't understand that to be the position as far as the initial transportation is concerned. I think after dropping Mr Ndlovu and his friends at the house, Mr Sibisi went, left.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I am worried that we are putting things to a witness and we don't know whether in fact what is the true position as far as the record is concerned. I think you better study the record and make sure that what we are putting, or what you are suggesting, is in fact what stands in the record. We've got sympathy with you of having this record of over 100 or 200 pages in total, I don't know, and receiving it only during lunch time and that was the only opportunity you had to read it.

But I think we will really be more productive if we would continue after you have really studied it and it is unfortunate because we won't have the opportunity to have a copy of the record, presumably before we are leaving tonight.

MR BLACK: I agree with the Commissioner. I don't know if I, unfortunately I am not at my own office and if I could get someone from the Johannesburg office to assist with the photocopying, we will certainly make every attempt to get a

copy to the members of the Committee, this evening.

ADV DE JAGER: If after the adjournment, you could come and

we can try to work out something about the copies and the availability and when they will be available.

JUDGE WILSON: I agree entirely with what Mr de Jager has said and this is why I have been asking you the questions I have, in that you have challenged the applicant's evidence about Sibisi taking them to Lydenburg. You said Sibisi was threatened, but you didn't challenge the applicant's version that Sibisi took them home in his car and they went to Sibisi's house and because they knew the Security Branch was going to be hot on their heels, they dispersed.

So I took it that that was not in issue that you accepted that. So that is why I agree - if you are going to challenge certain portions, then you must challenge all the portions you disagree with, otherwise we will believe that you accept the others or you simply say I am not going to

bother about matters of this nature, I am going to concentrate on the one, but if you start challenging bits of his evidence on other matters, then I think we have to go into all of it, otherwise we will accept the rest as being correct.

I think we should take the adjournment now to enable you to consult with the persons present and therefore, thereafter to consider the record. Very well, we will take the adjournment now, optimistically until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR BLACK; Mr Chairman, with regard to the time, you will appreciate that the victims and affected parties must come from Daveyton and if there is any delay, it may be probably, we will do everything possible to sort out that

transportation.

ADV DE JAGER: ... the only people present this morning at

nine o'clock was in fact the victims.

MR BLACK: Yes, the victims were certainly here on time.

JUDGE WILSON; Until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman my learned friend, Mr Currin and I have had several discussions about the further conduct of this particular hearing which we have mentioned to you in chambers, but I would prefer, I call upon Mr Currin to inform the Committee as to what he is - I understand he is seeking a formal postponement of the matter.

MR CURRIN: Thank you. Mr Chairman our position is that we would like the further presentation of the applicant's case to be postponed. There are witnesses that we need to consult with and which we would need to lead in support of the applicant's application and for that reason I would like to record the agreement that he will stand down, that my learned friend has agreed not to proceed with cross-examination at this stage and that we would technically close our case to enable the victims to lead their evidence.

We will not cross-examine them and at a later stage we will reserve our rights to cross-examine and at a later stage after we have led further evidence, we may well cross-examine. That is my understanding of the arrangement.

JUDGE WILSON; Well, could I suggest a few refinements to your agreement. Firstly, as you are well aware Mr Currin, it is normal practice not to speak to your client while he is subject to cross-examination, but in the circumstances

here it seems to me that Mr Black might well wave that to allow you to take further instructions from your client with the view to the further evidence you are going to lead. Do you agree Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Yes, I have no objection to that Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: The second point is perhaps of a highly

technical nature, is while you said there will be no cross-examination, I think it might be desirable if there is any matter that should be clarified, that you ask questions for that purpose, so we are fully aware there may be a possibility of misunderstanding between what your client has said and what they are saying and if you want to merely question for that purpose, I don't think that would be regarded as cross-examination and I don't think Mr Black would object to that either, would you?

MR BLACK: No, Mr Chairman and I understand further that Mr Ndlovu should the matter proceed, will be recalled.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: To enable me to continue with cross-examination.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. And it may also be possible for Mr Currin when he has considered his position to notify you that he does not require the presence of one or more or all of the victims who have given evidence, that we won't, we will take steps to ensure that they are not brought here for no purpose. So, you can keep in touch with one another and make such arrangements.

ADV DE JAGER: If any further documentation would be used, could that kindly be furnished beforehand so that we could have it beforehand and study it so that there won't be a delay on that again.

JUDGE WILSON: We should perhaps record that we have this morning received copies of the record which Mr Currin made available yesterday.

MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: The applicant may now step down. He has been told what is set. Are you in a position to proceed Mr Black, have you had an opportunity to talk to ...

MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman I have explained the position to the victims as it were and they are anxious that they proceed and that be no further delays. They are all working and ... I will therefore, with the Committee's permission, call two witnesses in respect of what occurred at the house on this fatal day of the 2nd of July 1987 and in that regard the first witness to testify is Mr Godfrey Masupa. His evidence in court at the initial trial of this matter appears in volume 1, on page 31 of that particular record.

Mr Masupa will testify in Sotho.

JUDGE WILSON: I take it that there is a Sotho interpreter. Will you please kindly now interpret the oath to the witness, will you stand please?

GODFREY MASUPA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I seem to have a bit of a problem here with this device. Perhaps I could ask someone to help me.

JUDGE WILSON: Is there another microphone available or ...

MS KHAMPEPE: Is there English translation on channel 2 Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, can you hear me, is it comfortable?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I hear you Sir.

MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, where do you reside? Where do you live?

MR MASUPA: I am staying at 1273, Daveyton.

MR BLACK: Could you please just speak slowly and pull the microphone closer to you. Pull that - yes, pull it closer to you. And during July of 1987, where were you living?

MR MASUPA: I was staying at 1273, Daveyton.

MR BLACK: Yes, please slowly Mr Masupa. Now, whose house is that?

MR MASUPA: That is my parents' home, sir.

MR BLACK: And who was the owner of that house? Was your father alive?

MR MASUPA: My father has since died, Sir.

MR BLACK: Yes, so who was the owner of the house at the time of this incident?

MR MASUPA: It was the house, it was belonging to Elinale Masupa.

MR BLACK: Elinale Masupa? Now, could you just tell the court at that time were you working?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I was working at that time, Sir.

MR BLACK: What were you doing?

MR MASUPA: I was working at the battery company in Benoni.

MR BLACK: So you had nothing to do with the shopping complex which belonged to your grandfather?

MR MASUPA: No Sir, I was not working there and I had no interest in that company.

MR BLACK: Now, on the night of the 2nd of July 1987, you were watching television together with a number of other people, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Who was all there?

MR MASUPA: I was with my mother who is Elinale, my

sister Christina Masupa, my other sister who visited us from Durban who was Melzinah, my other sister who was staying with him, who is Eunice and Catherine Nkosi.

MR BLACK: Is that Melzinah Mbatha?

MR MASUPA: Yes, that is Melzinah Mbatha.

MR BLACK: And Eunice Shabangu?

MR MASUPA: Yes, that is true, Sir. Trevor Cindi, Catherine Nkosi, myself and Richard Mbatha and Mrs Mbatha who visited from Durban and other two children who were at the house at that time.

MR BLACK: Now these two little children, I understand from the court record, at that time the one was aged about one year old and the other was a few months old?

MR MASUPA: Yes, they were little children, Sir.

MR BLACK: Right, so you were watching television and then what happened next?

MR MASUPA: Whilst we were still watching TV, lights were switched off - half the lights were switched off. Then we heard a knock at the kitchen door.

MR BLACK: Okay, can you just stop there please. The lights switched off, what do you mean by that? The lights, you say the lights were switched off, is that all the lights in the house or one room?

MR MASUPA: Yes, the whole house.

MR BLACK: So, how can people, where is your metre box or main switch situated?

MR MASUPA: The metre box is outside the house Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I think to a large extend you could ask more leading questions and Mr Currin would object if he is, but to expedite proceedings - as long as you are not

objecting, you could proceed.

INTERPRETER: (The speaker's microphone is not on)

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, your microphone.

MR BLACK: The meter box is situated outside the house and this house consists of a four roomed house, which the same as all the other houses in that area, is that so?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Right, and there are two entrances to this house? There is the main, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: A plan of the house has been made available as part of the record which was made available yesterday and we have also heard this evidence from the previous witness.

MR BLACK: Yes. Right, Mr Masupa, the door to the main entrance of the house, was that locked on that night?

MR MASUPA: Yes, it was locked.

MR BLACK: Now the kitchen door, that was unlocked?

MR MASUPA: It was not locked, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay, right, while you're watching television all the lights go off. The next, what happens next?

MR MASUPA: We heard a knock at the door. My mother asked them who is knocking, then they said comrades, then they entered the house.

MR BLACK: Where was your mother then?

MR MASUPA: She was at the kitchen Sir.

MR BLACK: And where were you?

MR MASUPA: I was sitting at the dining room, Sir.

MR BLACK: Watching television?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay. And did people enter the house or did you hear people enter the house?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I heard people coming inside the house Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay. Did you hear your mother saying who is that?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay, then what happened?

MR MASUPA: My mother said come in, then they said they

are comrades, then they entered the house, it was dark at the time. Then they called saying Mantha, then they switched on the lights and switched off again. Then Mantha went to the kitchen, then she said Vusi, what do you want? Switch on the lights, let us talk. During that time, she said we're smelling petrol.

Then after saying that, when I inhaled, went to the kitchen I saw a flame of fire. When I met that flame, children were crying at that time, they said brother, we ask you for help.

MR BLACK: Where were the children?

MR MASUPA: I didn't see the children at that time, but I heard them just crying. I was trying to break the burglar proofs so that I should help those who were inside.

MR BLACK: Okay, let's just slow down there please. You went to, did you go to the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen.

MR BLACK: Right and you heard the crying. Did you see who was in the kitchen? Was Mantha in the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir.

MR BLACK: Was your mother there?

MR MASUPA: My mother was in the kitchen also Sir.

MR BLACK: Did you see who else was in the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: I was not able to see other people were inside, Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu ran to one of the bedrooms, that is where I heard their cry. Then I went there to look for them inside the bedroom so that I would be able to help them there. At that time the door was closed, we were not able to go out.

MR BLACK: Which door are you talking about?

MR MASUPA: The kitchen door, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay, and the other door was locked?

MR MASUPA: Yes, it was locked, Sir.

MR BLACK: Right, then you said you tried to break the burglar proofs, or what?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: What did you do?

MR MASUPA: I tried to break the burglar proofs and I was burning, then I tried to drag the wardrobe. Luckily the wardrobe helped us to be alive and those children were burnt at that time, that is Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu.

MR CURRIN: Sorry Mr Chairman. The evidence in the record regarding what they did in the house in the bedroom to help to get the children out, we are not contesting any of that evidence. So to the extend that it is going to be repeated, I would just like to record that we are not contesting any of that evidence.

MR BLACK: May I proceed Mr Chairman? Right, you tried to - did you try and get the children out?

MR MASUPA: Yes, that is Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu.

MR BLACK: Yes, and they died on the scene, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: After we were able to open the door, we ran to the police station to look for help.

MR BLACK: Just hold on please. You saw flames, what did you do?

MR MASUPA: I tried to break the burglar proofs.

MR BLACK: Yes, and then what?

MR MASUPA: I was unable to do that because they were hot then. I was able to make the wardrobe fall down, then it was able to die off the fire.

MR BLACK: What did you do then?

MR MASUPA: Then, after that the door was, whilst I was still at the bedroom the door was opened, then I ran to the police station to look for help. Then I came back with the ambulance.

MR BLACK: Okay, now before you get there, before you get there, the door, when you always refer to the door, you're talking about the kitchen door, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: So you ran through the flames in - the kitchen was full of flames, burning?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir. Then I went straight to the police station to look for help. They took me to the ambulance station, then I came back with the two ambulance cars, then we took two children. Then our neighbours were already there to help us. We took them to the hospital.

MR BLACK: Right. Now tell me, were you injured at all?

MR MASUPA: Yes, yes, I was injured Sir.

MR BLACK: Well can you explain what injuries you suffered?

MR MASUPA: I was burnt on the face and then flesh was removed from my hands, then I was burnt on the lower parts of my body. I stayed three months in hospital.

MR BLACK: Those are still scars that is on your hands and your face, is that right?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: And your eyes, what happened to that?

MR MASUPA: My right eye was damaged, then they put me a new eye, or a false eye.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now, the evidence of Mr Ndlovu was that when he entered that house, he after he spent some time in that house trying to persuade the occupants of that house, to evacuate that house and he explained what they intended

to do to the house and that is why you must all get out. His evidence was that he - it wasn't just a brief time, he explained over, he made several attempts to get you out of the house before setting the house alight, did that happen?

MR MASUPA: No, Sir, that is not true.

MR BLACK: Did he make any attempt that you saw to go into the house to get the children out of the house, persuade any other of the occupants to remove themselves from the house?

MR MASUPA: No Sir, they didn't waste time after they arrived in the house. They didn't waste time. They just came and did what they intended to do. They didn't even give us a chance to go out. If they gave us a chance to go out, we could not have been injured.

MR BLACK: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who were they who came into the house, you say they didn't waste time?

MR MASUPA: My late sister who told us the saying Vusi, which means it is Vusi is the one who is called Absalom Gobela. That is the one whom my sister called his name, that is the one I was able to identify.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember you gave evidence at the trial?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And there you said there were two people who came into the house Vusi and Phineas.

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, now you've told us the only one you know was your sister called us Vusi? Which is the correct...

MR MASUPA: The truth is that she called Vusi because she said to Vusi what do you want, let us talk. Phineas at that time was with him, there were two people who were in the house.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, did you see him?

MR MASUPA: Phineas?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Why did you a few minutes ago say that you didn't, that the only person that you saw there, the only person you could identify as being there was Vusi because your sister called out his name, that is how I understood your evidence?

MR MASUPA: She called Vusi's name and Phineas was together with him, she didn't call Phineas, but they were two. She didn't say Vusi, Phineas, she said Vusi, but they were together.

ADV DE JAGER: Would it be correct if I say you didn't know Phineas' name before or did you know his name?

MR MASUPA: Phineas?

ADV DE JAGER; Yes.

MR MASUPA: Yes, he grew in the area, I know him.

ADV DE JAGER: So you knew him? Were you in fact able to see him there?

MR MASUPA: Do you mean Phineas?

ADV DE JAGER: When were you able to see him, weren't the lights out? When did you recognise him?

MR MASUPA: When they entered the house, they entered when it was dark and when they said Mantha, it is when they switched on the lights, then Mantha called his, Vusi's name.

MS KHAMPEPE: But Sir, when you got to the kitchen, you saw two people and you were able to remember that one of them was Vusi because Mantha called his name. Were you able to recognise Phineas Ndlovu, who grew up in front of you?

MR MASUPA: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: And you can today say with certainty that he was in the kitchen on that night, that him and Phineas, no Phineas Ndlovu and Vusi Gobela were in the kitchen on the 2nd of July, that night?

MR MASUPA: Yes, both of them were in the kitchen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you perhaps make a mistake during the trial when you only mentioned Vusi and you failed to mention Phineas.

JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned Phineas in the trial.

MS KHAMPEPE: You only mentioned Phineas Ndlovu.

JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned both of them at the trial.

MS KHAMPEPE: He did, oh?

JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned both of them in the trial, he didn't mention Phineas before us today.

MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought it was the other way around, I thought my Committee member had said that you had not mentioned Phineas Ndlovu at the trial.

JUDGE WILSON: You mentioned Phineas at the trial, you did not mention Phineas earlier in your evidence, is that not the position? Here today you did not mention Phineas until I began questioning you.

MR MASUPA: I was explaining to the Committee that both of them entered the house. Vusi is the one who was being

called by my sister and Phineas was with him.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you perhaps mention Vusi because Mantha had called Vusi by name?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Ma'am.

MR BLACK: Right, Mr Masupa, you were satisfied and you

testified at the trial that there were at least these two people in the kitchen, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay. But did you go to the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen.

MR BLACK: At what stage did you go? At what time did you go to that kitchen? Did you go into the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen whilst Mantha said the petrol, we are smelling petrol in the kitchen.

MR BLACK: Okay, so you heard her say that and then you went to go and investigate, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: Now, the important point is at no time did any of those two people who had entered your house, attempt to persuade you or any other member inside that house, to vacate the house before the petrol was set alight, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is correct, they never gave us time to be out of the house.

MR BLACK: Yes, okay. Now, you suffered extensive burn injuries, you've lost the sight of your eye. What about personal belongings inside that house, what happened to them?

MR MASUPA: The property was damaged in the house and the house was also burnt.

MR BLACK: When you say damaged, what do you mean? Completely burnt out?

MR MASUPA: We couldn't use them any more, they were completely burnt.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now there are one or two other issues I just want to clear up with you. As far as Mantha or

Christina, your late sister is concerned, was she a political activist and a student?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And was she regarded as a comrade?

MR MASUPA: Yes, she was regarded as a comrade.

MR BLACK: And as far as - what standard was she in then?

MR MASUPA: She was doing standard 9.

MR BLACK: Standard 9, right. You've heard the evidence of Mr Ndlovu and it has been explained to you that we will get an opportunity to ask him questions on that, further questions. But Mr Ndlovu says that he was also in standard 9 and at Davey High School. Do you know if he was at school? He was your neighbour.

MR MASUPA: I will briefly explain to this Committee about Mr Ndlovu. He grew up at his mother's place, that is in the Sotho section and they moved to our area and he came to be our neighbours.

MR BLACK: When was ...

MR MASUPA: He didn't go to school at that time.

MR BLACK: Okay, but now how old - when - you must be a bit, we don't know the times and the dates or the year you are talking about. When was this, in the same year?

MR MASUPA: They arrived in 1985 to be our neighbours, that is Phineas Ndlovu.

MR BLACK: And his mother?

MR MASUPA: Yes.

MR BLACK: Was he attending school then?

MR MASUPA: No, he was not schooling.

MR BLACK: Did he attend school at any time after 1985?

MR MASUPA: After 1985, there were riots until in 1987 when they were arrested.

MR BLACK: Yes ... (tape ends) and I understand Hendrik Masupa who has been mentioned, is he - he is your younger brother, is that so?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Did he sleep at that house?

MR MASUPA: No, it was years of not sleeping at home.

MR BLACK: And we are talking about the house that was burnt down now. And where did he sleep?

MR MASUPA: He used to sleep at my grandfather's shop.

MR BLACK: Is this the shopping complex which was referred to earlier on in the evidence of Mr Ndlovu?

MR MASUPA: That is correct, that is the same store Sir.

MR BLACK: Right, and as far as, if I may refer to him as Hendrik, is concerned, was he attending school?

MR MASUPA: Yes, he was schooling.

MR BLACK: What standard was he in at the time this happened?

MR MASUPA: He was doing standard 8.

MR BLACK: And what school was he attending?

MR MASUPA: Davey Senior Secondary School.

MR BLACK: Okay. As far as Phineas Ndlovu and his family is concerned, was there any difficulties or problems between your family and his family?

MR MASUPA: There were not problems at all between the two families.

MR BLACK: Was there any reason whatsoever to your knowledge why Mr Ndlovu and his friends arrived at your house, your mother's house and set it alight with everyone inside?

MR MASUPA: I do not bear any knowledge up to now, Sir.

MR BLACK: They did not give you any reasons when they

entered the house?

MR MASUPA: No Sir.

MR BLACK: And your knowledge of Mr Phineas Ndlovu's activities, he claims that he was a scholar and that he also was a comrade. What is your knowledge of his activities in that area?

MR MASUPA: I can testify before this Committee that he was not schooling. The comradeship that he referred to was the comradeship of robbing people, of stealing cars from people, of taking food from the delivery vans in the township. That he was a comrade, a real comrade, I do not want to testify to that effect.

MR BLACK: What do you mean by that, was he regarded, was he regarded, was he considered in the community to be a comrade?

MR MASUPA: No Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by comrade?

MR MASUPA: A comrade is a person involved in politics. That is my understanding.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, were comrades in your area not involved in stopping delivery trucks?

MR MASUPA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you know anything about a people's court?

MR MASUPA: There is nothing I know about the people's court, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: During those days, everybody was almost politically active, wasn't it so? And your sister Mantha

was also a comrade and a political activist?

MR MASUPA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the leader of Mantha and her comrades' group?

MR MASUPA: I know a person called Aubrey.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know him as the leader of Mantha's group?

MR MASUPA: I know him very well, he used to frequent our home.

JUDGE WILSON: Was he the leader of Mantha's group? Was he connected with the group that Mantha associated with, the comrades?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was he a scholar?

MR MASUPA: Yes, he was also at Davey Senior Secondary School.

ADV DE JAGER: The people - on entering the house - was there only one speaker or did both of them or more of the people entering the house, address you and speak out?

MR MASUPA: I couldn't understand, I couldn't hear well what they said, but there was talking in the kitchen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, how soon after you had heard people coming into the kitchen, did you go to the kitchen to join them?

MR MASUPA: I went to the kitchen when the deceased, Mantha, said we are smelling petrol.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was it after some time or was it immediately after you had heard people coming into the kitchen?

MR MASUPA: That was after they called her name, Mantha.

JUDGE WILSON: Was the talking in the kitchen before they called Mantha's name?

MR MASUPA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, when did it happen - the talking, you said there was talking in the kitchen but you couldn't hear what they said.

MR MASUPA: The called Mantha, Mantha went to the kitchen and she said to them Vusi, what do you want, talk and she said I am smelling petrol.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but a moment you said to us I could not hear well what they said, but there was talking in the kitchen. What did you mean by that?

MR MASUPA: I mean they were talking, but they were not shouting. There was no noise.

JUDGE WILSON: When were they talking?

MR MASUPA: They came into the house, they called Mantha, she went to the kitchen.

JUDGE WILSON: And they talked then, did they?

MR MASUPA: It means they talked to her because she replied. Because she went on to say I am smelling petrol.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was your mother present when Mantha went to the kitchen, was she there?

MR MASUPA: Yes, she was in the kitchen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Do you still want to lead Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Yes, I thought there was still ... Mr Masupa, as far as Mr Ndlovu is concerned, his activities, you say you know him well, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: I know him very well.

MR BLACK: Alright. Do you know anything - did you know Mr Sibisi?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I know Mr Sibisi.

MR BLACK: Now, how do you know him?

MR MASUPA: He was staying at the next street from my

grandfather's shop and he had a car.

MR BLACK: Yes, and what do you know about that now? Did Mr Ndlovu know Mr Sibisi, do you know anything about it, could you please just tell us what ...

MR MASUPA: Mr Phineas Ndlovu and them were troubling Mr Sibisi because he had a car. They always wanted to use his car, if there was anything they wanted to do, they would go to him and he couldn't bear it any more. He said I am leaving this area, these boys are troubling me every time they come to my place and they take my car with force.

MR CURRIN: Sorry Mr Chairman, is this not hearsay evidence and what is its relevance? If it is hearsay, I do object to it. Are you going to call Mr Sibisi to say that this is what he has been saying?

MR BLACK: It is not hearsay in the sense that Mr Sibisi told him, told him and this is - no ...

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't hearsay clearly what somebody tells you?

MR CURRIN: It is hearsay in the sense of what allegedly these people did, but he, Sibisi gave him a reason for leaving the area. That is it, whether it is true or not, it is immaterial.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, since we've practised, I believe the Act has been changed. Hearsay evidence can be allowed, whether is has got any value, that is another thing.

MR CURRIN: Just in the spirit of the nature of cross-examination for the purposes of this Committee, I would suggest that maybe this evidence is really not relevant.

MR BLACK: Well, I don't want to get embroiled at this stage.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I think it is finished now hasn't it, so let's go on.

MR BLACK: Now you heard Mr Ndlovu testify yesterday, he addressed you and the family at length asking for forgiveness for what he had done. What is your attitude

towards, what do you feel about that?

MR MASUPA: I will never forgive Mr Ndlovu. If it were possible for him to raise my dead sister, I would forgive him, but I am not in a position to forgive him now. I am not referred to as - people don't refer to me with my name, they call me a burnt person and I don't want to pretend that I will forgive him. God please forgive me, I don't have forgiveness in my heart. We are here to speak the truth, to reconcile, but I am sorry, I cannot.

MR BLACK: Did you at that time, Mr Masupa, regard the actions of Mr Ndlovu and his friends as acts carried out by comrades? Is that what you expected comrades to do, let's put it that way?

MR MASUPA: No Sir. I never expected the comrades to burn the house. Comrades are fighting for truth and justice.

MR BLACK: Just to clarify one little issue. You were asked about certain political activities that took place in the township, were you working during say the year of 1987?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I was working.

MR BLACK: Were you working on a full time basis?

MR MASUPA: Yes, I used to go to work at seven and knock off at four.

MR BLACK: Were you in any way involved in any political activities in the sense of ...

MR MASUPA: No, Sir, I was not involved in any political activities.

MR BLACK: Okay I have nothing further to add, thank you Mr

Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, I will only ask you one question pursuant to what has been led by Mr Black. To your

knowledge did the comrades not burn down houses of people who were perceived to be informers in your area?

MR MASUPA: I don't remember of such an incident. That -our house was the first to be burnt, that is according to my knowledge.

MR CURRIN: Just two questions for clarification.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, may I - before, there was one question I omitted to put to the witness.

JUDGE WILSON: You may go on.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you. Mr Masupa, do you know whether the comrades in that area that you knew, approved of the fact that your house had been burnt down?

MR MASUPA: No Sir.

MR BLACK: Why do you say that?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you are asking whether he knows whether they approved. He said well, I don't know, so I presume the answer would mean he doesn't know whether they approved or disapproved.

MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, do you know whether the comrades in that area said that it was the right thing to do, did they approve of the burning of your house or not? Did they approve of it or did they not approve of it?

MR MASUPA: No, they didn't approve it. Because even when we were at the hospital, the comrades came to visit us. Aubrey and them came to visit us at the hospital.

MR BLACK: Yes, but when they came to visit you did they say that it was the right thing or the wrong thing that was

done?

MR MASUPA: They were telling us about the thugs that attacked us in the house. They told us how they arrested some of them, they got hold of them all. After we were

burnt in the house, the comrades went out searching for them and they found them.

MR BLACK: Yes, so are you saying that it was made clear to you by comrades there that they did not approve of this act?

MR MASUPA: Yes, they were totally against the burning of our house. They came to see us at the hospital.

MR BLACK: Yes, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

MS KHAMPEPE: When you say comrades Mr Masupa, you are referring to Aubrey and who else?

MR MASUPA: I won't be in a position to give names. I know Aubrey for a fact that he was their leader because he used to come at my home and they would go away with Mantha and while we were at the hospital, they came in large numbers. Some of them I do not know, but every time he was introducing them as comrades. Some of them were new to me, it was my first time to see them. But I knew him for a fact that he had been to my home a few times.

MS KHAMPEPE: Were these comrades also scholars? Did they also attend the same school as Mantha?

MR MASUPA: That is my understanding.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know Aubrey's other name?

MR MASUPA: No, that is the only name I know, Aubrey.

JUDGE WILSON: Does Aubrey still live in the district?

MR MASUPA: Yes Sir, he is still around.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know where he lives?

MR MASUPA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: So you would have no difficulty in pointing Aubrey out and telling someone where they can find him?

MR MASUPA: I won't have problems Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, were there different groups of comrades

as far as you were concerned or was there just one group of comrades?

MR MASUPA: It is just one group of comrades, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And Aubrey is the leader?

MR MASUPA: That is correct, he was the leader of that group.

MS KHAMPEPE: How did you know that Aubrey was the leader of the comrades, was this information volunteered by Mantha?

MR MASUPA: Yes, my sister Mantha told me that Aubrey was their leader.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was Hendrik also a comrade?

MR MASUPA: No, he wasn't a comrade.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, once again, may I just place on record. For the sake of the Committee and should we try and trace - I am informed that Aubrey that has been referred to is a member of the Civic Association in Daveyton at the moment, so we will try and get hold of him.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman, just two questions for clarification. I would like to reserve my cross-examination for later if necessary. The one is you mentioned following a leading question that this incident happened on the 2nd of July, was it not the 2nd of June, just for clarification, just for record purposes? Right at the beginning you said the 2nd of July and he agreed it was the 2nd of July, was it not the 2nd of June?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE WILSON; The indictment that we have been given a copy

of, says the 2nd of July.

MR CURRIN: Okay. Our record says the 2nd of June, but it must be our mistake and I am glad that that has been

clarified, thank you. The other question, just for clarification with regard to the doors, you said the front door which is in the sitting room and the dining room, was locked. Where was the key?

MR MASUPA: The key was - it was a bundle of keys, some of the keys were for the coal box and one person in the house must have gone to fetch the coal from outside and he didn't put the key back.

MR CURRIN: So the door was locked and the key was not in the door, is that what you are saying?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: The - if the key had been in the door and if it had been possible to open that door, looking at the plan of the house, I assume it would have been very easy for every one in the bedrooms to go out through the front door, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: I have no further questions for clarification.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN.

JUDGE WILSON: I have a few questions I would like to ask you. Do you know Johannes Sitoga?

MR MASUPA: I know him.

JUDGE WILSON: How do you know him or from where do you know him?

MR MASUPA: His mother stays opposite our house.

JUDGE WILSON: And does he live with his mother?

MR MASUPA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Was he a scholar?

MR MASUPA: Yes, he was schooling.

JUDGE WILSON: Was he a friend of Mantha's or any of your other relations?

MR MASUPA: No, he wasn't a friend to Mantha.

JUDGE WILSON: The next one is Lazarus Matsomai

MR MASUPA: I know him.

JUDGE WILSON: Where do you know him from?

MR MASUPA: He once came home with Hendrik. They were together at school.

JUDGE WILSON: Did they appear to be friendly?

MR MASUPA: Yes, they are still friends even today because he spends some of his nights at home.

JUDGE WILSON: Phineas, well you've told us about Phineas, Vusi, Absalom Gobela, do you know him?

MR MASUPA: I know him, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Where from?

MR MASUPA: He was in the same street with Phineas Ndlovu, but a little bit further.

JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?

MR MASUPA: No, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Patrick Mahlangu?

MR MASUPA: I know him.

JUDGE WILSON: Where from?

MR MASUPA: The street next to Phineas Ndlovu's.

JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?

MR MASUPA: No, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: How did you come to know him?

MR MASUPA: I just know him because he was around the township.

JUDGE WILSON: And finally Elias Ratone?

MR MASUPA: I know him Sir. We live in the same street.

JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?

MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir he was at school.

JUDGE WILSON: The same school as Mantha or Hendrik?

MR MASUPA: I do not have knowledge to that extend Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he ever come to your house?

MR MASUPA: Yes, they used to come to my home.

JUDGE WILSON: What to do?

MR MASUPA: My mother sells ice cubes and food for the school children.

JUDGE WILSON: And they come to buy from her?

MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir, they used to come and buy.

JUDGE WILSON: How many more witnesses have you got, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: There are two further witnesses. Mrs Masupa who was the lady in the kitchen and the owner of the house and if there is time, I would put Hendrik in who can testify to certain events leading up to the incident.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, we commenced late which means that the three of us came into this room late, but I am fully aware of the fact that other people may have been here for some considerable time. Would they like to take an adjournment at this - a short adjournment at this stage? If so could they indicate? I gather that it would be desirable. We will take a short adjournment and will we please be informed as soon as everybody has been able to attend to what they have to and comes back.

JUDGE WILSON: What language?

MRS MASUPA: I will testify in Zulu.

ADV DE JAGER: I noticed that somebody of the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee is present. We will have no objection is he is assisting them to ...

MR BLACK: I would greatly appreciate that, thank you.

ELINALE MASUPA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Masupa, is it correct that on the 2nd of July 1987 you were the owner of house number 12743, Mocke Street, Daveyton and that on the night of the burning down of your house you were the owner, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct. ...(tape ends)

MR BLACK: Now, on the night of July 1987, you were at home and in the kitchen at about nine o'clock?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And who else was in the kitchen with you?

MRS MASUPA: I was with my two children, I was the third one, I was with Eunice and Melzinah.

MR BLACK: That is Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Could you - while you were in the kitchen, could you just tell the Commission, the Committee what happened?

MRS MASUPA: Whilst I was in the kitchen, I had just made tea, as I was taking the cup and sitting down preparing myself to enjoy my tea, I saw the lights go off and there was a knock at the door. And when I asked as to who was knocking at that time when it was dark, they said they were comrades and they knocked and actually got into the house without me having said they should come in and I asked them as to who they were, they told me they were comrades.

I told them to switch on the lights if they were comrades and at this stage they called Mantha's name.

INTERPRETER: Mrs Masupa, could you please take your time because all that you are saying should be written down, even the people that you are mentioning should be written down

and there is an interpretation or a translation that is going on, so could you please speak slowly so as to enable them to keep pace.

MR BLACK: Mrs Masupa, let us just go one step back. You were inside the kitchen with your children Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: It is true.

MR BLACK: Both of those two children of yours died in the fire?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Right. While you were busy settling down to have a cup of tea, you saw the lights go off and somebody knocking at the door?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: Okay. They entered, you asked who they were and they said they were comrades?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Okay, what did you then say to them? Were the lights still off when they came in? Was it still dark when they came in?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, the lights were off at that stage.

MR BLACK: Okay, right, what happened next?

MRS MASUPA: I said to them they should put on the lights if they were comrades and they called out Mantha's name. Mantha came whilst it was dark and they switched the light on and they switched it off once more. That was a quick motion. And Mantha asked as to what was happening. And she asked them to switch on the lights so that they could talk

and within a short space of time, I saw some fire, it happened so quickly.

MR BLACK: So did Mantha mention a person's name? Mrs

Masupa, did Mantha mention somebody's name?

MRS MASUPA: She said Phineas and Vusi. She called Phineas and Vusi's name out.

MR BLACK: Now you say it all happened very quickly. Is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: When the lights went off the second time, what happened?

MRS MASUPA: That is when I saw fire breaking out.

MR BLACK: Right, yes, then carry on. Carry on, what happened then?

MRS MASUPA: Then a fire broke out immediately after the switching on and off of the lights and after Mantha had spoken to them and the house was in flames at that stage.

MR BLACK: Yes, and where did you see the fire start, was it in the kitchen?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, the fire started at the kitchen, just next to where I was sitting.

MR BLACK: Yes? Then what happened?

MRS MASUPA: When the fire broke out, I jumped out of the chair, my children ran into the bedrooms and after setting the house alight, they ran away and they closed the door behind them, trapping us inside the house and I was fighting and trying to open up the door and I realised that Mantha had fallen on the floor or on the ground.

MR BLACK: Okay, let's just stop there. Can you remember how many people came into the kitchen? How many people came in from outside into the kitchen?

MRS MASUPA: Two people.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now you say when the fire started, they ran out of the door, the kitchen door, is that so?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct, yes.

MR BLACK: And they closed the door behind them?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct. When they went out, they shut the door after them.

MR BLACK: And you said you were struggling to open the door?

MRS MASUPA: I followed them and I held the door so that they couldn't shut it and we struggled for the door. They were pulling the door trapping me inside and I was pulling it towards me trying to open up, but I ultimately managed to go out.

MR BLACK: So there was actually, there was a person on the other side actually trying to pull that door closed and hold it closed and you were trying to pull it open, there was a struggle?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: Right. You managed to get out the kitchen, then what happened?

MRS MASUPA: As I got outside, I looked back and I saw the flames looming in the house and as I was looking I saw Mantha struggling on the floor and I got into the house, I pulled her out of the house, I was screaming at that time and she was in flames. I could hear the other children screaming in the house. I climbed on top of the bed and I peeped through the window and there is another one who came and pushed the window, trying to trap me inside so that I couldn't look out and at that time I was fighting in the flames trying to get out as well as getting the children out.

MR BLACK: And you saw Mantha laying, it was on the kitchen floor was it? Mantha was on the kitchen floor?

MRS MASUPA: That is true and she was struggling, she was

burning, she was laying on the ground in flames.

MR BLACK: And the window which you tried to open and someone trying to close the window, where was that, in the kitchen?

MRS MASUPA: It was in the bedroom and I had come there for the second time, after taking Mantha out and I was trying to rescue the rest of the children.

MR BLACK: And yourself, were you burning? Were you in flames?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was in flames.

MR BLACK: And you say there was someone on the outside trying to keep the window closed when you were trying to open it?

MRS MASUPA: That is true. He pushed the window and said you dogs, voertsek, get back into the house and burn to death and the children were screaming inside the house.

MR BLACK: Right, and then what happened to you? Sorry, did you say you left, you got out?

MRS MASUPA: We got out of the house because the house was now in flames and the flames were starting to touch the bedrooms and we went outside the house itself.

MR BLACK: And yourself, were you also in flames?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was in flames at that time, but I was better off because I was wearing woollen clothes and they were not all ignited, but the other children were badly burned.

MR BLACK: What happened to the two little children, one aged about one year old and the other a few months old?

MRS MASUPA: When we went outside, Mr Mbatha was trying to

break the window, the front window and rescue the children. So he rescued the children through the window as well as his wife. They were the only ones who were able to get out

through the windows.

MR BLACK: That is Mr Richard Mbatha?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And his wife's name, what is her name?

MRS MASUPA: Her name is Elsaphina Mbatha.

MR BLACK: So Mr Richard Mbatha made sure that the little children got out first, he passed them through the window?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And what is your, what happened after that, after the whole house was suddenly in flames?

MRS MASUPA: Thereafter we were looking for Godfrey and we couldn't get him, we went all over the place, even to the neighbours looking for Godfrey. And we discovered that the other children ran to the neighbours' places and that is where we got them. We looked for Moses but we couldn't get him, only to find that he had gone to search for some medical attention.

MR BLACK: Now Godfrey is your son, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, that is true.

MR BLACK: And, so then did medical attention arrive or help arrive?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, the people came, the neighbours came. Even the ones who came thereafter, they were not able to help us because the house was in flames by then and they didn't know how to help us.

MR BLACK: And there were people trapped inside the house, is that correct? There were people inside the house while it was burning?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, there were people inside the house whilst it was burning.

MR BLACK: But you managed to pull Christina out, that's

Mantha, out of the flames of the kitchen?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was able to do that because she had fallen on the ground and she had lifted her hands up. I managed to pull her out.

MR BLACK: But she died subsequently, is that so?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: So you lost three daughters there, Christina Masupa, Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: As far as the contents of your house is concerned, was anything saved?

MRS MASUPA: The contents were badly damaged, because even now there are some of the remains of the badly damaged furniture, I had to start from scratch since that day. And I had to refurbish the house.

MR BLACK: Now, I just want to Mrs Masupa, you were working at that time, is it not so?

MRS MASUPA: That is true, I was working.

MR BLACK: And what type of work were you doing?

MRS MASUPA: We were, I was working at Hendler & Hendler, I was decorating pots.

MR BLACK: Yes. So you didn't have your own business and you weren't a wealthy person, is that so?

MRS MASUPA: I didn't have anything I was just an ordinary person.

MR BLACK: And you lost everything in that fire and you had to start rebuilding your house even, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: Mrs Masupa, I just want to get onto some of the things which have been said by Mr Ndlovu. He says that

when he and his friends entered that house, they had quite a discussion with you and the other people in the kitchen. They discussed the behaviour of Hendrik, they informed you that they were going to burn down the house, they made a number of attempts to persuade the inhabitants of that house to in fact, vacate the house. Did that happen?

MRS MASUPA: It did not happen like that. Because if it happened like that, we would have been able to save ourselves and survive, because we didn't care much about the property, our lives were much more important than the property itself. We would have been able to get out had they given us a chance. They never even wanted to speak, even when Mantha pleaded with them to switch on the lights, they did not want to do so, they went on with their mission.

MR BLACK: He also says that the kitchen door, there was something wrong with the kitchen door handle and it was difficult for them to get out, was that the case?

MRS MASUPA: That is a blatant lie. And I would have liked the people to go and see the door because there is nothing that was wrong with the door, it is still even like that, even now. Nothing has changed and the door was working properly and in proper condition.

MR BLACK: And you say that when they got out of the door, someone was actually holding the door, trying to pull it closed and you were trying to pull it open?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And did they close the door at one stage? Was the door actually pulled closed ...

MRS MASUPA: Yes, they were able to close the door.

MR BLACK: And then they held the door closed and you tried to pull it?

MRS MASUPA: That is true, because when I tried to open the door, I discovered that it was very tight and I pulled harder, that is when the door got open.

MR BLACK: Yes, and in fact, you gave evidence in the earlier court hearing and at page 64 of the court record, you make mention it is between lines 1 and 5, that you pulled on the kitchen door and you felt there was somebody on the other side holding it, but you later on managed to open it.

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: The children Melzinah Mbatha, who were they?

MRS MASUPA: They are my relatives, they had come to visit, they were from the rural areas.

MR BLACK: Okay, were they also injured?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, they were injured.

MR BLACK: Right.

MRS MASUPA: Eunice is my sister's daughter, she was staying with me at that time.

MR BLACK: And Richard Mbatha and Trevor Cindi were also injured by the fire, is that so?

MRS MASUPA: That is true.

MR BLACK: And Catherine, apart from your other three, your three daughters, Catherine Nkosi also was killed in the fire?

MRS MASUPA: That is true. Catherine is Trevor's mother.

MR BLACK: Now, if I can just return to another aspect. Hendrik Masupa is your son, is that not so?

MRS MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And he will testify and I just want you to confirm

it that for about six hears he hadn't been sleeping at your home, but that he used to sleep after work at his grandfather's shopping complex, where he used to work after

school, is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: That is true, he was asked by his grandfather to come and assist at the shop and he would also help him in return with taking him to school and we reached an agreement that he should go and stay with his grandfather and I felt that he would be safe if he worked there in stead of joining the gangsters.

MR BLACK: Was Hendrik ever a member of any gangsters or comrades, either gangsters or an organisation?

MRS MASUPA: Hendrik went to his grandfather, he did not belong to any organisation, he did not belong to any gangster, he was a scholar at the time when he was taken from me to his grandfather.

MR BLACK: And your daughter, Christina, there is evidence that she was a scholar and an active member in the comrades at school?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, that is true. She was attending school and she was a comrade as well.

MR BLACK: What standard was she in then?

MRS MASUPA: Christina was in standard 9.

MR BLACK: Now Mrs Masupa, may I ask how old are you now at the present?

MRS MASUPA: In June I will be completing 58 years, I will be 58 years old.

MR BLACK: Have you been able to work since that incident or the fire?

MRS MASUPA: I have never been able to work thereafter.

MR BLACK: Why?

MRS MASUPA: I was not able because I got injured and I could not stand for long periods of time and it is the type of work that I was doing at Hendler & Hendler and I had to

stop working because of the injuries that I sustained in the fire.

MR BLACK: Could you just briefly tell the court what injuries you sustained and what suffering you've had?

MRS MASUPA: My face was burnt, this is not my colour. My face is a different colour. My legs were injured. I always have to wear stockings whenever I go out of the house because my feet as well as my legs were injured. My right hand side as well as my right foot and leg have been severely injured and I can't stand for periods of time, I can't even do my own washing.

MR BLACK: And have you had to undergo several operations?

MRS MASUPA: Yes, I had to undergo some skin graft.

MR BLACK: Now, Mrs Masupa, yesterday you heard the evidence of Mr Ndlovu. Is that correct?

MRS MASUPA: Mr Ndlovu's testimony gave me so much pain because he is asking for amnesty, but he is telling blatant lies before this Committee. How can he even start to ask for amnesty when he can't even begin to speak the truth?

MR BLACK: You also heard Mr Ndlovu ask your forgiveness - from the family. How do you feel about that?

MRS MASUPA: I would have forgiven Ndlovu if, when he rendered his testimony he told the truth, but he gave such a fabricated version of the whole event, so much so that he dampened my spirit, he even dampened the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation that I thought I may probably have. If he could wake up the four people who could forgive

him, but what annoys me even more is the lies that he continued to tell the Committee. I loved my family and I loved my children.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mrs Masupa. I've got no further

questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mrs Masupa, did Hendrik ever sleep at home, on one, maybe on the odd occasion or did he never, ever sleep at home?

MRS MASUPA: Hendrik was no longer sleeping at my place because we had an agreement with his grandfather. Because of the cafe, they used to close very late and we realised that he would come back knocking very late at night, that is the reason why he wasn't sleeping at my place.

MR CURRIN: I have no further questions for clarification. I would reserve cross-examination for later if necessary, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: The members of the Committee have no questions to ask. I would however on behalf of the members of the Committee and I am sure on behalf of everyone else present here today, express our profound sympathy to Mrs Masupa for her tragic loss and also our admiration for the courage that she displayed under very trying and difficult circumstances. I would like her to leave here knowing that she will be in our thoughts and in our prayers. Thank you Mrs Masupa. You may go.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will call the next witness. The next witness is Mr Hendrik Masupa. Mr Masupa will also testify in Sotho.

HENDRIK MASUPA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, you are the brother to Mr Godfrey Masupa who has testified and the son of Mrs Masupa who has just given her evidence, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: During 1987, July 1987 you were at school and you were in standard 8? ... (tape ends) and your sister, the late sister, Christina also attended Davey High School, is that so?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Evidence has been given by Mr Ndlovu that he was also at that school, Davey High School in standard 9. Did you ever see him there?

MR MASUPA: That is not true because it was many years I've been attending that school, but I've never seen him in the campus of that school.

MR BLACK: Now, from a living point of view, did you used to sleep at your mother's house? There is evidence rather, let's put it this way that you did not sleep at your mother's house but that you used to sleep at your grandfather's shopping complex after work?

MR MASUPA: That is true. I may put it this way, well from the high primary up to high school I was sleeping at my grandfather's shop.

MR BLACK: Do you know Lazarus Matsomai?

MR MASUPA: Yes, Lazarus Matsomai was my friend because we attended school together.

MR BLACK: Right, and he was accused number 2 or the co

-accused in the criminal trial brought against Mr Ndlovu?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Did Lazarus Matsomai ever sleep at your grandfather's house with you?

MR MASUPA: Yes, he did sleep at many instances with me.

MR BLACK: So he knew that you, that's where you stayed and slept and that you did not sleep at your parents' home?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Now, if we can get to the 2nd of July 1987, you were working at your grandfather's shopping complex, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: And in the restaurant?

MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.

MR BLACK: Now, there is - according to the court records of the previous criminal proceedings and for the assistance of the Committee your evidence starts on page 15 of volume 1, you said that this group of people came into the shop. A group of people including all six of these accused in the previous trial, one of whom was Mr Ndlovu. Do you remember that?

MR MASUPA: I remember that Sir.

MR BLACK: Right, now they came into the shop. Could you tell the court broadly speaking, what happened?

MR MASUPA: I'll put it this way. These people, there were six all of them, they were six. The one who gave - another girl who was selling at the counter, I was at the till at that time, they started to argue with the customers. Others pulled out sjamboks and beat the customers, other customers ran out of the shop, others ran behind the counters. When we tried to call them to order, we found

that the lady who was giving the money, I took their money then I told them that I will give you back your money, we are not going to serve you because you have beaten up our

customers and others have run away and others are behind the counter.

In that case, therefor we have no security, because they may take anything behind the counter. That is when I tried to persuade them to go out. I was together with a

certain boy who was working at the shop, who was working permanently there who is David. When we took them outside, they started to insult us. We closed the burglar doors, we closed other customers inside the shop. They started insulting. We were not worried about the insults.

What worried us was that we should help the customers so that those who are in the shop wouldn't be able to go out because it was at night. After we helped those customers, we opened the door for them. Before they left, while they were still insulting, one of them said to us you think you are better, we will burn the whole building.

MR BLACK: Okay, can you just slow down a little bit, Mr Masupa. When you say one of them said to you that you think that you are better and we will build this whole building down.

JUDGE WILSON: Burn the whole building down.

MR BLACK: Burn, burn, sorry, burn the whole building down, when you say one of them, are you referring to, who are you, are you referring to one of the six that were causing trouble?

MR MASUPA: Yes Sir. One of them amongst the six, the word came that we will come back and burn the whole shopping complex.

ADV DE JAGER: Who said that?

MR MASUPA: I am not sure who said those words amongst them, because they were at a distance. There were - where they were it was a little bit dark and all of them were insulting and talking, then he said at the shop you are full of shit.

MR BLACK: Were they sober at the time? Had they been drinking or were they sober?

MR MASUPA: According to my observation they were drunk because if you know a person and when you discipline him, not trying to hear you, according to my observation they were drunk. They were not even listening to me.

One person who was working there, helped them to go outside.

MR BLACK: The David you are referring to, is that David Matsabula, who testified?

MR MASUPA: Yes, that is David.

MR BLACK: Did he work at the shop?

MR MASUPA: Yes, he was working at the shop.

MR BLACK: You managed to get these people out of the shop. Did you lock the doors, the shop doors?

MR MASUPA: After we took them outside, we were able to lock the burglar doors. We closed all the steel doors and at that time, they were talking but they were going away. When people are talking in a group and the person who said they will come back and burn the house, and those who were insulting, you will not be able to identify their voices who is speaking at that time, who says what and what.

MR BLACK: But you say you heard them, coming from them, distinctly saying that they will be coming back and they will burn the whole business down?

MR MASUPA: Yes, they said that they will come back and they will burn the whole shopping centre.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, during your criminal trial didn't you say that it was Mr Matsomai and Maqlanga who made such utterances about coming back to burn down the shop?

MR MASUPA: It might be them, because I was able to identify, I was trying to identify the voices of individual people, because all of them were six.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you are saying you might have been mistaken during the criminal trial, the evidence that you gave might have been untrue?

MR MASUPA: I would not say I was mistaken, there were no other people except the six of them.

MR BLACK: I think the passage referred to by the Commissioner appears on page 17, towards the bottom of the page.

JUDGE WILSON: Line 26?

MR BLACK: 26, yes. It says that it is Lazarus and number 5, who was Patrick, amongst other things said they will come back and all of you inside the shop, we will set the shop alight. Is that more or less what happened? Was there confusion?

MR MASUPA: You mean whilst they were still talking?

MR BLACK: Yes, while they were leaving and while you were getting them out of the shop they were saying amongst themselves they will come back and they will burn the shop down?

MR MASUPA: They said so that they will return and burn the shop.

MR BLACK: What effect did this have on you?

MR MASUPA: They didn't have a chance because I knew that

after we have closed, there are people who were on guard, there is security in the sjibeen on top who are always guarding the place.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now did they return after they had caused havoc amongst the customers and were sjamboking people and you got them out of the shopping complex? What I want to get at, you said at one stage that they were also expressing - you heard them saying that you think that you are better

than us. Is that so? What else did you hear them say, did they say that you think that you are better than us, you said something like that?

MR MASUPA: They were saying we are trying to make us better, we are trying to make ourselves better. They were passing derogatory statements. I was not sure as to whether they were insulting us for what because they came with the intention to fight us.

MR BLACK: When you say us, who are you talking about?

MR MASUPA: I mean us, we people who, I mean we the workers, or maybe the owner of the shop.

MR BLACK: When did they start insulting you, is this after you had told them to leave the shop because they were misbehaving?

MR MASUPA: After we took them outside, then they started insulting.

MR BLACK: Now, I just don't want to go into every detail again of your evidence which you testified, but the cause of you asking them to leave, was because I understand they were sjamboking people and they were causing havoc amongst the customers, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is true, because they started fighting with the customers. They just started attacking the

customers and hitting them with sjamboks. Then I was able to see that this people were coming to fight.

MR BLACK: Now how did you get them out of the shop?

MR MASUPA: I went outside the counter and I pleaded with them to leave. One of the workers pushed them outside the shop, then they said, now because you are fighting, therefor you have got to go outside.

MR BLACK: Who was that worker, was that David Matsabulah?

MR MASUPA: That is David, Sir.

MR BLACK: Okay. So you didn't have a whole lot of people helping you to push them out?

MR MASUPA: No, no Sir. People who were inside the shop were customers only and other people who were there were girls or ladies, who were helping us in the shop.

MR BLACK: Did you assault any of these six people, you or David? Were they hit by you people?

MR MASUPA: There was no one amongst them who was slapped or even us, they didn't insult us. Or they didn't assault us and we didn't assault them. There was no person who was fighting with them.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now after this incident and you got them out, they threatened to come back and burn the place down and they said that you had insulted them and you thought that you were better than them, did they ever come back to that shop that day?

MR MASUPA: They never came back. Because after about 10 minutes, I was sent to go fetch newspapers at a certain house. I drove to that house, when I came back I was told to go home because some of my grandfather's children had already gone home and I was told to go home, they will take care of the shop. And I left the shop in a hurry to go

home. On my arrival there were ambulances and fire brigade and people were all over the street.

I didn't understand what was happening because this whole issue that happened at the shop was already out of my mind, I never had anything of that kind in my mind. When I arrived at home, some of my family members were already in the ambulance and the police arrived and I left with them.

Mantha was laying on the lawn and she was telling us

who did this and she was also taken into the ambulance.

MR BLACK: The next day you also went back to your home, that was, when I say your home, we are referring to the home of your mother, is that correct?

MR MASUPA: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Now, the next day you went back to your mother's home as well, is that so?

MR MASUPA: That is correct, Sir.

MR BLACK: What happened while you were at your mother's home?

MR MASUPA: A group of boys who work at the shop came to help us clean the house, take the damaged property outside and after a few minutes, the comrades arrived.

MR BLACK: How many comrades arrived?