CHAIRPERSON: Right shall we proceed with the next matter?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that?
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, it's the Wesselsbron/Thaba'Nchu Police Attack.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, if I may address the Committee.
Mr Chairman, there are only two applicants in the matter and ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Who are they?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Lerato Abel Khotle and Moalusi Morrison. I must also thank my learned friend for bringing this case because I feel that it's a sequel to the one we have just heard.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it the reason there are only two applicants is that Mazete did not make application in respect of this incident in his application and Mr Mpashlele Raymond Nklapa has elected not to appear, is that correct, because there were originally four applicants?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, my impression, I don't know about Mazete, my impression is that it's Mohape who is supposed to have been an applicant in this matter. It is supposed to be Mohape.
CHAIRPERSON: Now Mazete is the person whose papers have been included and they have no reference to this at all.
MR MBANDAZAYO: That is why I'm saying Mr Chairman, because the weapons were finally at Mr Mohape where they were to be removed from, that's the point I'm trying to ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: But this is not the weapons, this is the attack on the police.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Well Mr Chairman, let me not give something in but my understanding is that I understand a certain attack on the police but it's a result of the weapons which were taken from one of the applicants in the previous case, which were kept by him. The evidence will indicate that they went, the reason they attacked the police were coming from removing the weapons.
MR MALAN: Are you saying that he should be added to this incident on the basis of him having had knowledge of the attack on the police or simply in terms of the possession of the arms?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I'm saying that although Mr Mohape is the only one who should have been an applicant if he knew what actually happened with the police, because at the time they attacked the police were from him to remove the firearms but definitely he has no knowledge of what happened after they left with the firearms from his place.
CHAIRPERSON: He's already applied for amnesty for possession of the firearms, that is the application you handed in.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm saying that he applied for possession of arms because they did not take all the firearms when they went to remove them from him. So, on the way they met the police, that is where this all happened.
MR MALAN: So you're not suggesting that he be heard again on this matter.
MR MBANDAZAYO: No, Mr Chairman, I'm not. Definitely Mr Chairman he has no knowledge of that. I was just explaining to the Committee that that is a sequel from that one, though the others didn't know about the whole thing. I was doing that for the benefit of the Committee. Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Committee I will call Lerato Khotle to take the witness stand.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I may, I've managed to establish that this applicant actually pleaded guilty in the Regional Court. I've managed to get a copy of his pleas of guilty in the Regional Court, and with your permission I beg leave to hand it in as Exhibit A.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you seen it?
MR STEENKAMP: I only managed to get hold of this document this morning Mr Chairman. ...[indistinct] never asked for the Regional Court. I can just put it on record, maybe I must put it on record. I saw in the application there was a Regional Court Case Number and I asked the Regional Court and the investigating officer to go and have a look in the Regional Court and see if we can trace this plea of guilty, which we did.
CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't it given if you got it this morning to Mr Mbandazayo before lunch. They could have looked at it over the adjournment.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there was difficulty logistically to make a copy of the police documents.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't think it would be fair for him to call his client when there is a document that he has not had an opportunity of consulting his client on and I think he must be given an opportunity for himself to read it and thereafter consult his client. What we have been given in a statement made by the applicant which seems to be a number of pages.
Now let's start again. The document I have been given goes to page 4, paragraph 7, 8, the next page, paragraphs 9, 10, 11, the next page, 12 and 13, the next page, 16, 17 and 18. What has happened to paragraphs 14 and 15?
Have you got them?
ADV SIGODI: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got them?
MR MALAN: No.
CHAIRPERSON: None of us have got those paragraphs.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to get copies of those documents, original as well, and make a proper copy. I didn't have the opportunity to have a look the document myself but I know there is a copy missing.
CHAIRPERSON: A page missing.
MR STEENKAMP: I mean a page missing.
CHAIRPERSON: That should be attended and we will take a short adjournment until you've had an opportunity. Let us know as soon as you are ready.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: The application at present before us is an application by Mr Lerato Abel Khotle and Mr Moalusi Morrison in respect of an incident which has been referred to as the Wesselsbron/Thaba'Nchu Police Attack. There are only two applicants remaining in that the third applicant who appears in the bundle has not in fact applied for amnesty in respect of these incidents and the fourth applicant has elected not to continue with his application and is not present.
Before hearing the application, I would like to make certain remarks, and those are that the Committee hearing the application is the same Committee as heard the previous application. Although that was a separate application, the two applicants in the present application were involved in that application, and it would appear from the papers, the same political parties are involved. In these circumstances, in the light of the fact that we heard considerable evidence as to the aims of the political party, particularly the aims at that particular time and the aims of the persons who were members of the party, it will not be necessary for the applicants in the present application to lead similar evidence. We will have regard to the evidence that has already been put before us. A further reason for arriving at this decision is that the present incident is directly connected with the application that we have just concluded. Will that meet the - have either the applicant or the Evidence Leader anything to say in that regard?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I have nothing to say except we accept it on the part of the applicants, the decision of the Committee, and we abide by it, thank you.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have any comment. We are actually grateful that this matter can actually be dealt with as it is dealt with now.
CHAIRPERSON: As I've already indicated, the panel remains the same. Will you gentlemen put yourself on record for the sake of the transcribers?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Lungelo Mbandazayo and I'm appearing on behalf of the applicants in this matter, thank you.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my name is Andrč Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader and I'm also representing the victims in this matter.
MR MBANDAZAYO: May I proceed Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: You may.
MR MBANDAZAYO: May the applicant be sworn in?
LERATO ABEL KHOTLE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Will you once again give us your full names please?
MR KHOTLE: Lerato Abel Khotle.
EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Khotle, you have an affidavit in front of you which is also before the Committee. Do you confirm that this affidavit was made by yourself and you abide by its contents?
MR KHOTLE: That is correct Sir.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence of the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Sir, my instructions are that both the victims in this matter are opposing your application on the grounds that there was no political motive for this incident. Their argument is as follows: The reason why you started shooting at the police was because you were afraid that you were being arrested after they followed you in your vehicle, in their vehicle I mean. Do you have any comment on this?
MR KHOTLE: It is their right to be against my application, there is nothing I can on that. That is what I expected, thank you.
MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: ...[indistinct]
MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir.
MR MALAN: Mr Khotle, can you just inform us why did you intend to remove the weapons?
MR KHOTLE: After the Wesselsbron Supermarket Incident I went to Umtata where I gave a report, after some time. I don't remember how long. Whilst I was in Umtata I learnt that one of my comrades, that is Ngesi, was arrested and he had the knowledge of the whereabouts of the arms.
I met with the Director of Operations, we discussed about this issue. After that we agreed that I am obliged to go back and remove those arms. I could have taken other arms to Botshabelo and others to Welkom.
MR MALAN: In your statement, I think it was in your statement to court, in your confession, in your plea, you said that you originally intended to take all the weapons but then removed only one, is that correct?
MR KHOTLE: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Why did you remove only one then?
MR KHOTLE: On our way to Wesselsbron, together with comrade Moalusi Morrison, he made me aware, he was afraid that we might be tracked down, maybe the security officers knew about this car and they were following this car. After I received that information I decided that it would be important that we should not remove all these arms at the same time but I should take one and then I will see later how I would remove the other arms and take them to Welkom and others to Botshabelo.
CHAIRPERSON: But if you were caught in possession of one illegal weapon you were in just the same danger as if you were in possession of four, weren't you?
MR KHOTLE: That would be true, but the reason is that if it happened we would be able to secure other arms that they should not be confiscated from us.
CHAIRPERSON: You mean it was not your risk that you were considering but the risk of losing your arms? The risk of losing your weapons, not your arms.
MR KHOTLE: I understand the way you put it, but I understood that because we were two and the other one is a driver. From Wesselsbron to Welkom, that's where Mr Moalusi would leave me, then the bulk would be safe and then I would be able to remove them later. Then I said, in case there was a pursuit from Wesselsbron to Welkom I would be able to use that rifle which was with me. In my understanding to take on arm it would serve that purpose.
If it happens that from Welkom to Botshabelo he is pursued by the police, if it was possible for him to use that firearm he would be able to use that because it was one.
MR MALAN: Why did you not remove the other weapons?
MR KHOTLE: The reason I've already given is that I decided to leave them behind after he made me aware ...[intervention]
MR MALAN: Sorry to interrupt you. I'm asking you why did you not later remove the other weapons?
MR KHOTLE: After that what happened is that the following day which was on Friday the other one was arrested, that is Mazete. He was arrested and as a result of that those firearms were confiscated and that is why it wasn't possible for me to go back because they were not there anymore.
MR MALAN: Then the last question, what did you pay Mr Moalusi Morrison for the use of his kombi?
MR KHOTLE: In that statement which I gave in court which is before this Committee, that is the reason which I would contest because I understood that we should not all of us go prison. If I didn't say it that way it was clear that Morrison could have been arrested, so I was prepared to go alone to prison.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm a little confused. I'm looking at your application and you say that this took place on the 20th of July 1993.
MR KHOTLE: I'm not able to verify but I remember writing that on my application. I'm not able to verify clearly. It might have happened after that date.
CHAIRPERSON: Because as I understand you said it was shortly after the incident, you went to Umtata, you were told Ngesi had been arrested and therefore you had to remove the arms.
MR KHOTLE: If I remember well, if you may look at the court record, this may have happened in October, on the 20th or on the 21st.
CHAIRPERSON: That makes things much more realistic because the weapons were found on the 22nd of October. You say this might have been some months after the supermarket robbery. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
