Amnesty Hearings

DR KLEPP: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Dr Klepp, for the sake of the record would you please describe your qualifications and specialisations?

DR KLEPP: I have an MBChB degree from the University of the Witwatersrand, a diploma in Forensic Medicine from the College of Medicine of South Africa, a Fellowship in Forensic Pathology from the College of Medicine of South Africa, and a masters degree in Forensic Pathology from the University of the Witwatersrand.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Where do you work?

DR KLEPP: I work in the Gauteng Department of Health and as a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand.

MR RICHARD: And during January 1988, where were you employed?

DR KLEPP: I was working both at the Soweto and the Johannesburg Government Mortuaries.

MR RICHARD: As what?

DR KLEPP: As a Specialist Forensic Pathologist.

MR RICHARD: And what were your duties at that time?

DR KLEPP: Among my duties was obviously to do post-mortem examinations on people who had died of unnatural deaths.

MR RICHARD: So do you consider yourself to be a Specialist Pathologist?

DR KLEPP: I am.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now before you had a post-mortem report, do you recall the incident?

DR KLEPP: Vaguely. It was 11 years ago, but I vaguely remember a post-mortem that I did do at Diepkloof with Dr Gluckman in attendance.

MR RICHARD: When was that done?

DR KLEPP: I conducted a post-mortem examination on body DK158 of 1988, on the 27th of January 1988 at the Diepkloof Mortuary.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Gluckman is quite well-known in the profession, isn't he?

DR KLEPP: Yes, he is, very well.

MR RICHARD: And Dr Gluckman and you did this particular post-mortem together?

DR KLEPP: Well Dr Gluckman watched me conduct the post-mortem examination.

MR RICHARD: And why was Dr Gluckman there?

DR KLEPP: I do not know, he must have been requested by somebody, but I do not know who.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now if you look at the post-mortem report on Schedule of Observations, it's page 52 of the bundle, there various injuries are described, the first one being a 6mm round wound. Now what would that wound have been caused by?

DR KLEPP: Wound 1 in paragraph 4 is a gunshot entrance wound to the head.

MR RICHARD: And where was the exit wound?

DR KLEPP: Wound 2 is a description of the external wound which was over the ramous of the mandible on the right side, as I'm indicating at the moment. So in other words, we had a gunshot entrance wound over the top of the head on the left side that exited the jaw on the right side.

MR RICHARD: Now that gunshot was consistent with somebody standing above the person, is there anything more you could say?

DR KLEPP: I am unable to say in what position the two people were to each other, the deceased could have been sitting, standing, he could actually have been standing with the head bent forward. One cannot say that the person was necessarily above the individual when he was shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Does page 57 show you the entrance wound?

DR KLEPP: I don't know whether I have page 57. Are there some photographs?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

DR KLEPP: Yes, photograph 57, as one looks at the book the photograph at the bottom shows the gunshot entrance wound with the hair around the wound having been shaved.

MR RICHARD: Could you make any comment as to how far the firearm was away from the victim?

DR KLEPP: I do mention on page 4 of my report, under Specimens Retained, that I took the hair from around the wound and I handed it over to the investigating officer for examination, the Police Forensic Laboratories in Pretoria. Had they found powder, in other words burnt and unburnt gunpowder, I could then give you an estimation, a rough distance from which the head was shot. If there was no powder, and I don't have the result of that test, well then it would be considered to be a distant shot, which means over one arm's length from the deceased, but I don't have the result of whether it was positive or negative.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now if we proceed to page 53 of the bundle.

DR KLEPP: Again what I have in front of me is not numbered.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

DR KLEPP: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 3 of the report is page 53.

DR KLEPP: Right, I do have it.

MR RICHARD: There we come to item 12, and it says

"Trachea contained blood stained secretions"

What is that consistent with?

DR KLEPP: There was blood in the air ways which could have come from the head. In other words with the gunshot wound to the head, the skull was fractured and blood could then have passed down through the back of the throat.

Another possible sight of where the blood could have originated is when one has sustained a severe gunshot wound to the head you actually get shunting of blood from the periphery of the body to the lower pressure system of the lungs and exudation of blood into the secretions. So it could either have come from below or from above.

MR RICHARD: And then we proceed to paragraph 13 where you describe

"Sub-plural haemorrhages involving all lobes of the right lung."

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What are they consistent with?

DR KLEPP: Sub-plural petechial haemorrhages usually occur in conditions of anoxia where a person has had difficulty breathing. In this gentleman the cause of them would have been the gunshot wound to the head, which would have caused respiratory embarrassment.

MR RICHARD: So that would mean that the gunshot did not cause instant death?

DR KLEPP: It did not cause instant death, as is borne out by my findings of inhalation of blood in paragraph 13 on page 3 of my report, and also the large sub-endocardial haemorrhage in the left ventricle of the heart. One finds those in conditions of shock or low blood pressure. If one dies immediately one does not usually find those, whereas if one has sustained a severe injury where the blood pressure had dropped and that blood pressure is maintained at a low pressure for a period of time, that's when that haemorrhage occurs.

MR RICHARD: I know it's difficult, but would you be able to give us any indication as to how long this gentleman took to die?

DR KLEPP: I'm unable to do that, the only way that that could be assessed is if I had been called to where he had been found dead. Oh no, you're not asking me how long he had been dead for, how long - no, I'm unable to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Well can you give us an estimate? You have referred to a period of time.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about five minutes or half an hour?

DR KLEPP: I would talk about more in the region of half an hour or longer.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks. I cannot be absolutely accurate on that, that's a rough estimation, but if somebody were to have seen him half an hour later and he was alive it's certainly consistent with that, if he was seem alive two to three hours later, it's also consistent with that.

CHAIRPERSON: But it's certainly more than five minutes?

DR KLEPP: I do believe so, yes. The part of the brain that the bullet passed through was not one of the vital centres, in other words it did not go through the mid-brain or the ponds or the medulla oblongata, so it would have taken just a little bit longer than had it gone through a vital centre which would have been instantaneously fatal.

MR RICHARD: Now paragraph 17, there you make the comment

"The stomach contains undigested food."

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What does that mean to you?

DR KLEPP: When a person has just eaten a meal and the food is now in the stomach, on opening the stomach would appeared to be undigested. One can on occasion actually identify what the person has eaten, one might for instance see rice particles or peas or meat. I don't in this specific instance exactly say what was in the stomach, but it appeared undigested, in other words it looked as though it had just been swallowed. Had it had a more fluid consistency and had undergone digestion, I would have called it partially digested food.

MR RICHARD: What are the various answers that you could have put to that question 17, stomach and contents?

DR KLEPP: Well it can either be undigested, partially digested, it could be empty, it might have contained blood, it could have contained mucous, it all depends what's there. It was actually undigested in this gentlemen.

MR RICHARD: Now when does the digestive process stop?

DR KLEPP: Stop or start?

MR RICHARD: Stop.

DR KLEPP: Well it would have stopped in this gentleman when he died.

MR RICHARD: Not at the time of the gunshot?

DR KLEPP: It's a difficult issue, I've actually brought some references about it, that food is digested and undergoes digestion from the time one eats it. In other words chewing food mixes it with saliva and the digestive process begins. When it's in the stomach it continues to be digested. There are however a number of factors which alter the digestive process, one of which, which is important to consider, is stress. I don't know the circumstances of this death, but if for instance during the meal or shortly after the meal this man had been subjected to stress, in other words either verbal or physical, the whole digestive process would come to an end.

We on occasion see people who had been lying in hospital for a week, still with stomach content in them because the whole movement of the stomach actually stops. I'm not sure if that has answered your question, but it certainly would have been slowed down by a stressful situation and certainly when he had been shot, I would not have expected much movement out of the stomach into the intestines of food.

MR RICHARD: Can you make any comment as to a time between death and the shooting?

DR KLEPP: The time of death and shooting, I think that's a question that was put to me a bit earlier, how long in other words would it have taken him to die after the gunshot wound?

MR RICHARD: From the time that he ate the from to the time that he died.

DR KLEPP: It is extremely difficult. I have brought with me today a reference by Bernard Knight who is possibly the doyen in the world in forensic pathology. If you would just like to hear the first sentence of his article of stomach emptying: "With one exception this controversial topic could be dismissed summarily as being quite irrelevant". There are so many different factors that one cannot put much emphasis on the actual level of digestion of food and linking it, in other words estimating that interval. So in other words, I found it undigested, he might have been shot five minutes after eating the food, but he could also have been shot an hour or two hours later. I cannot exclude that.

MR RICHARD: So that means that the impression that I was under from conversations that death was within an hour of him eating of the meal, is incorrect?

DR KLEPP: I spoke to you as you know, telephonically a week ago and you put the question to me and since then I have gone to the references and this is what I found to be the overwhelming feeling. In a normal individual a meal would take about two hour to be digested and pass through in four hours, but due to various factors, for instance if you've eaten a fatty meal it's retarded, it you are stressed it's retarded, if you've had a lot of fluid with your meal, the movement through to the intestines will be speeded up. Because of these various factors one cannot be categorical, but usually undigested means that you've died soon after being shot, but as I say, with the exceptions that I have mentioned today.

MR RICHARD: So I cannot give any indication as to how soon?

DR KLEPP: I'm afraid not.

MR RICHARD: Unlike last week, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think one can make it even more difficult for you.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It is possible, and I stress now that I am not making any finding on this, that this young man arrived on the scene and suddenly to his horror discovered somebody there whom he was terrified of...

DR KLEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and that he remained in the company of this man for some time ...

DR KLEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he was shot.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now that would, what you've just told us, lengthen the process of non-digestion if he was under a state of stress for the whole time, you couldn't estimate at all?

DR KLEPP: Absolutely not, I agree with that wholeheartedly.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, doctor. Do you recall how the man was dressed?

DR KLEPP: I did not have any clothing on the body, the clothing is usually removed prior to the post-mortem examination by the police. There was no clothing on the body when I examined him.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and things of that nature, that's not part of your function?

DR KLEPP: No, the clothing is usually removed off the bodies before I get the body. If a gunshot has gone through the clothing, the investigating officer would then submit that piece of clothing to be examined for residue. On occasion we do get bodies with clothes on if it's deemed prudent. I remember with Stompie, Stompie had his clothing on when I examined him.

MR RICHARD: Did you examine the surface of his skin on his side at any point?

DR KLEPP: I examined the whole of his body.

MR RICHARD: Did you notice anything on his skin?

DR KLEPP: If we could just go back. Paragraph 4 of my report is a description of the external appearance of the body, I think we've gone through 1 and 2 which is the gunshot wound through the head, I found blood exuding from the nose. I then got - number 4

"Scattered areas of abrasion which involved the forehead on the right side, the upper and lower eyelids of the right eye and a few over the right zygomatic arch, which is the cheekbone, they appeared punctate"

I'm sure you don't want me to go into that. You're asking about on the right side of his body?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

DR KLEPP: Then there were - some of those look graze-like. Then we had the other gunshot wound on the arm, which is wound 5, and I found the bullet at 6. Then we carry on to the annexure

"There were abrasions which extended from just below the bullet wound ..."

No, that's on the arm again.

"There was bruise with associated abrasion below the gunshot wound. There was a scratch abrasion at the dorsa aspect of the right hand and there were two abrasions over the right shoulder superiorly."

So to answer your question as to whether there were abrasions on his body, there were none.

MR RICHARD: And you wouldn't have noticed any residue of sticky-tape or ..."

DR KLEPP: Stick-tape I wouldn't be able to pick up. Do you mean if stick-tape had been on an individual?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

DR KLEPP: I found nothing on the body which made me suspicious of a gummy material on the body.

MR RICHARD: Now let's return ...(intervention)

DR KLEPP: But again the bodies can sometimes be washed off if they are grubby. The body may have been washed off prior to my examination, but they shouldn't actually have washed off anything which looked remotely suspicious.

CHAIRPERSON: The sticky-tape you've been asked about, there's a suggestion that he had a radio transmitter strapped onto his body with that tape that one uses for that purpose, and that this was pulled off him some time before he was shot, some hours before he was shot.

DR KLEPP: Yes. I didn't see anything like that, and you can appreciate we do have a number of elastoplasts found on bodies, which we then have to remove. They often don't leave any mark on the body once we've removed them, but I did not find anything suspicious. It doesn't mean that there wasn't or hadn't been sticky-tape on the body.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it if he walked around for two hours after it had been removed, with his sweatshirt on, that would probably rub off anything which ...(intervention)

DR KLEPP: It could well have, yes.

MR RICHARD: If we go to paragraph 4, you describe: "injuries over the right zygomatic arch"

What are they consistent with?

DR KLEPP: These are consistent with either a fall to the ground once he'd been shot - I am unable however to exclude that there hadn't been a fall to the ground prior to him being shot, it's due to any hard object coming up against that part of the body. It could even be a punch, but it's more likely to be a fall to the ground due to my description of punctate. In other words if one falls onto gravel or a tarred road and the surface is slightly rough, one would get that appearance.

I mention too that some of the abrasions have a graze-like appearance, meaning that there had been a slight dragging possibly of the body, you know of the face on the hard surface.

MR RICHARD: If the body had been dragged any distance, would you have seen any injuries?

DR KLEPP: Oh certainly. I don't feel that this is consistent with dragging of the body, it's more likely that when the face fell onto the ground, that there was some movement in that area. There were no extensive scrape abrasions on this body.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that death was not instantaneous.

DR KLEPP: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So if he was lying on the ground there may well have been slight movements that could have caused all of this?

DR KLEPP: Absolutely. And simply the face coming onto the ground initially was sufficient to create what I've got here.

MR RICHARD: Are there any signs that the deceased was assaulted?

DR KLEPP: All the injuries that were on the body are described in paragraph 4. There are the two scratches which I mentioned on the annexure of the report. The scratch over the dorsa aspect of the right hand could mean that there had possibly been an altercation and the scratch ensued. And the two abrasions over the right shoulder, superiorly again very small, 2,5cm x 2cm, the other one 1,5cm x 5cm, these could have been sustained when, again, he possibly fell to the ground, but anything hard up against it. But this is not a typical assault, this man has not been beaten with sjamboks or kicked, we don't have large bruises. The prominent finding really is the gunshot wound which appears to have gone through the head and then into the right arm.

MR RICHARD: Last point is paragraph 23 on the post-mortem report, 54 of the bundle and the last page, I think of the post-mortem report.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: There you describe the kidneys

"The right kidney, the medulla are congested, there is a streaking of the cortex"

DR KLEPP: Yes, this is another feature which one gets when a person is in a condition of shock or low blood pressure, like the sub-endocardial haemorrhage that I mentioned. The kidney has an auto-regulatory mechanism whereby instead of sending blood to the periphery of the kidney, it has a short-circuit and sends it back to the medulla. So congestion of the medulla and streaking of the cortex is yet another sign in the deceased that he did not die immediately, but was in a state of shock.

MR RICHARD: So overall to sum up what you've said, from the post-mortem report the person died at a consequence of the gunshot wound to the head over a period somewhere between 5 minutes and half an hour after the shot.

DR KLEPP: Or longer.

MR RICHARD: Or longer.

DR KLEPP: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And the contents of the stomach are not an indication of how long it was between the shooting and the last meal?

DR KLEPP: No.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Well again this is a difficult question to answer without having seen the scene, is it possible that after the shot he fell down and lay, apparently immobile, that people may have thought he was dead.

DR KLEPP: It is. I mean he has sustained a very serious gunshot wound to the head which has gone through both halves of the brain and he would not have mobile or particularly active, he may have lay there very still.

CHAIRPERSON: And the fact they see there's blood in the head they think he's dead now and leave him.

DR KLEPP: Probably yes. He certainly would have been very unconscious and if no breathing was seen, he could have been considered to be dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR KOOPEDI: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Doctor, we are extremely grateful to you to have come here this morning and to assist us in ...(indistinct)

DR KLEPP: It's a pleasure.

CHAIRPERSON: We know how busy you are and we say thank you to you.

DR KLEPP: Thank you very much, thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

RECALL OF MR MAKHUBU

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may I recall to the stand the last witness, unless of course my learned friend isn't done with cross-examining him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we have a ...(indistinct). I think you have to recall him. We hadn't concluded his evidence formally.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I believe it may be appropriate to hand in the doctor's references about the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry yes, the medical report was not officially an exhibit as such, it is one of the documents before us and one which we have reference to.

MR RICHARD: The document I'm referring to is the writings on the stomach emptying as a measure of time since death.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: The doctor has very kindly brought two copies. If anybody wants to look at it it is available, but I'm going to call this Exhibit B.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, did we not have Exhibit B already yesterday?

MR RICHARD: I remember the statement Exhibit A.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, before you proceed. Mr Makhubu, we just remind you that you are still under oath.

CLIVE MAHLAULI MAKHUBU: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now during 1987, if I recall correctly you said that from the beginning of the year till the middle of the year you were in detention, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I was arrested in 1986, November and I was released in June '87. That is what I said.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now during 1986 you already knew Mr Dube, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now on your release during 1987, did you hear any rumours regarding his bona fides?

MR MAKHUBU: Rumours with regard to what?

MR RICHARD: As to whether he might or might not be an informer.

MR MAKHUBU: No, that I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Who did he say he was at that time?

MR MAKHUBU: Sorry, I've a technical problem with my headset.

MR RICHARD: Will the technician ... Can you hear what I'm saying and the translation clearly now?

MR MAKHUBU: I only hear English.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the interpreter please talk.

INTERPRETER: The applicant can hear.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: When you met Pat, how did he describe himself, who did he say he was, what did he say he did?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand what you want me to say, what you want to know rather.

MR RICHARD: Did you know Mr Dube as either Ithumaleng, Mr Dube or Pat or Silver?

MR MAKHUBU: I knew him as Pat.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever hear him being referred to as Silver?

MR MAKHUBU: As who?

MR RICHARD: As Silver.

MR MAKHUBU: No, I didn't know that one.

MR RICHARD: Would you agree that your suspicions regarding the deceased, Sicelo, after his so-called disappearance in October 1987, were based on pure speculation?

MR MAKHUBU: It's best for me to say suspecting him and speculation it is different, but the fact that he disappeared brought some concern to us, it was a cause for concern, his disappearance that is.

MR RICHARD: And it was his disappearance that was your primary concern, and whether he had reported on you or not, correct or not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't follow your question.

MR RICHARD: What was your concern as a result of his disappearance?

MR MAKHUBU: You want to go back then I will go back to what I have already said yesterday. Must I?

MR RICHARD: When he disappeared what was the result in your mind? It made you concerned, didn't it, yes or no? I think you've said yes yesterday.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And what was Mr Dube's principle concern as a result? Was it to do with finding him or recovering the weapon?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: What was Mr Dube's concern, was it to locate Sicelo or to locate the supposedly missing weapon?

MR MAKHUBU: Firstly, the concern was based on his disappearance, stemming from the fact that he was a cell member and knowing the cell's regulations that you don't disappear for no apparent reason because you are working together with other people who have weapons as well. In other words if you are not present and we don't know as to where you are you pose a problem to us. And the security was of vast importance, therefore your disappearance becomes a concern to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know he had been arrested?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: This is in October?

MR MAKHUBU: That's very true.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know if he had been released?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What, you knew he'd been released?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that he - you knew he had been arrested in October, did you know that he had been released from arrest?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you know that?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not certain as to when inasfar as time is concerned, but I knew that or I was aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Shortly after his arrest or only when you saw him again?

MR MAKHUBU: I heard immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: That he'd been released.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: From whom did you get that information?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't quite remember as to who uttered that to me, but I know that happened.

MR RICHARD: You didn't get it from the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: But I thought you were aware that I did not see him immediately, so how could he have told me that?

MR RICHARD: Now if I tell you he reported his arrest and detention and assault to his then attorney immediately thereafter, would you be in a position to dispute it?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I won't dispute it because I was not there.

MR RICHARD: Now - and if I put it to you further that his decision to leave Soweto and to stop living at home was so as to avoid further arrests, would you able to dispute that, comment on it?

MR MAKHUBU: I won't dispute that either because I don't know his whereabouts, or I did not know his whereabouts.

MR RICHARD: But you also agree you could have done far more to locate him than what was done?

MR MAKHUBU: I hear the statement, I am not sure if you are asking me a question.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand what you have told us a few minutes ago, your feeling was that he as a member of the cell should have told you what he had done and where he had gone because the practice was if he was to go away for more than a day he should report it, is that so?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is true.

MR RICHARD: But you had been asked to look for him, hadn't you?

MR MAKHUBU: I agree to that.

MR RICHARD: And my proposition is you could have done a lot more to find him than was done, do you agree with that or not?

MR MAKHUBU: I explained to you that I did not run all over the place looking for him because he should have come to me as well.

MR RICHARD: When the deceased came to your house on the day, that Sunday, were you not personally anxious to find out where he had been between October and January?

MR MAKHUBU: I did have interests.

MR RICHARD: Did you ask him?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not.

MR RICHARD: So that morning you made no effort at all to question him, if I recall your evidence from yesterday.

MR MAKHUBU: That is true what you've just said.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how is that? I find it very hard to understand that you now see a member of your cell, someone you had worked with, who disappeared for three months and he reappears but you don't say to him; where have you been?

MR MAKHUBU: I thought I'd addressed that yesterday, am I supposed to repeat it today again?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are.

MR MAKHUBU: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: You did what?

MR MAKHUBU: When he presented himself to us on Sunday I only said to him that there is an important thing that we have to discuss. I don't know as to what he was planning. He looked like he was planning to go somewhere and I said to him he must go and come, in fact there is something we have to him about. We let go of him and he came back. I wanted him to explain during Dube's presence as well, as to where he was. Another thing I highlighted was the last time we spoke about him we did agree that when he comes or when comes back to us we should ask him and he should account.

I think what I did was right because I wanted him to furnish the explanation in the presence of the commander, not to me alone.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were his commander.

MR MAKHUBU: That I don't dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: And he had disappeared for three months, now suddenly you had a chance, he was there, but you say you didn't ask him you said; oh go away and come back later and we'll ask you.

MR MAKHUBU: That's what I said.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard.

Do you mean to say that you did not even indicate to him that this important thing you wanted to discuss with him was about him having disappeared? You did not indicate that?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not.

ADV SANDI: You just said there was an important thing which you had to discuss with him?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now we've heard a lot of evidence about a chain of command, were you not his commander and accordingly he was responsible to you?

MR MAKHUBU: I will again repeat, it was so.

MR RICHARD: And we've heard Mr Dube say that he couldn't report to Mr Dumakude, he could only report to Mr Grasskopf, wouldn't the same have applied to you?

MR MAKHUBU: Please don't compare the two situations, that is Dube's situation with Aquino and mine as well, don't compare the two situations.

CHAIRPERSON: You had recruited him hadn't you? You recruited Sicelo, you made him a member of your cell.

MR MAKHUBU: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: You were responsible for him. You were the link between him and Mr Dube.

MR MAKHUBU: yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you never asked him a thing yourself, you never asked for an explanation.

MR MAKHUBU: Am I supposed to lie, am I supposed to lie now?

CHAIRPERSON: No. Does this mean that you and Mr Dube had already come a decision about the deceased and that you weren't really interested in finding out where he'd been?

MR MAKHUBU: Those are your words, they are not mine.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Did the deceased have anything with him when he came to see you that morning?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not take note of anything.

MR RICHARD: You didn't see him carrying anything or anything in his pockets?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not notice anything.

MR RICHARD: If he had had a gun or something with him, would you have been able to see it?

MR MAKHUBU: If I have my gun with me you will not be able to see it.

MR RICHARD: Do you know what he was wearing that day, do you remember?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember what he was wearing.

MR RICHARD: If I say that according to the documents with which I've been briefed, he was wearing a T-shirt and some grey or black trousers, red socks and red shoes, would you remember that?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't want to commit myself to that because this happened a long time ago, so I will not sit here and say I remember that.

MR RICHARD: Now when he arrived, did you take any notice as to whether he was alone or whether people were with him that he left outside, or did he just come to your door?

MR MAKHUBU: When he arrived when, in the afternoon?

MR RICHARD: That Sunday morning.

MR MAKHUBU: He was alone, because I walked him out.

MR RICHARD: But when he arrived, did you see whether he was with anyone?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not see anything.

MR RICHARD: Now did you ask him where he was going to go once he'd left you?

MR MAKHUBU: I thought I explained that he said he wanted to go somewhere and I said to him; go and come back. That I said.

MR RICHARD: If you were suspicious of the deceased at that stage, didn't it occur to you that if he arrived in the morning then went away, he might be setting up a trap?

MR MAKHUBU: It could have been up to him that.

MR RICHARD: Somebody you suspect arrives at your house in the morning, you talk to him very briefly and he goes away, you stay at your house and you tell him to come back to your house later that afternoon, didn't that arrangement worry you if you were suspicious?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what you want me to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Well more than to come back to your house, didn't you know that your commander was going to be at your house that afternoon, and here you were telling this man to come back there?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not see anything wrong or any problem in what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't suspect that he was setting up a Security Police trap, you saw no danger of that?

MR MAKHUBU: Now I don't know what to say or what statement must I utter, because from here onward I'll be lying if I have to elaborate on this.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to lie to elaborate, you can tell the truth. Is the position that you didn't suspect him of anything, you saw no reason to suspect a trap?

MR MAKHUBU: To suspect him does not mean I must be a coward.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you suspect him of working for the Security Police then?

MR MAKHUBU: I was not certain about that.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't ask you whether you were certain, I asked you whether you suspected him of working for the Security Police when he came to your house in the morning?

MR MAKHUBU: That did occur.

CHAIRPERSON: Mm? You did? But you didn't ask him where he'd been, you didn't ask him where he was going to, you merely arranged for him to return to your house at a time you knew your commander was going to be there, is that the factual position as you put it?

MR MAKHUBU: I explained that as you've said.

MR RICHARD: Now for how long was he away from your house between the time that he left in the morning and the time he came back, how many hours was that?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't how much you want me to say because I did say that he came in the afternoon towards dusk. That's what I said. As to how long, maybe I'll have to start to refresh my mind and count hours, an hour, like that.

MR RICHARD: We know that there were seven hours in the afternoon approximately, at what time in the morning did he leave you?

MR MAKHUBU: He arrived around eleven.

MR RICHARD: So he had an entire day, eight or more hours to do what he liked without any surveillance or control over him, and you were happy with that situation?

MR MAKHUBU: No, when you refer to happiness, I don't know what you're talking about now.

MR RICHARD: Very well, then when he came back that afternoon, who did he meet with first, you or you and Mr Dube, or Mr Dube?

MR MAKHUBU: He found us outside, the two of us.

MR RICHARD: And were you present when Mr Dube started searching him and talking to him?

MR MAKHUBU: I did explain that I was not there.

MR RICHARD: So you didn't see the discovery of this alleged radio transmitter, two-way radio?

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that.

CHAIRPERSON: As soon as he arrived did Mr Dube say go and phone the others and tell them to get ready?

MR MAKHUBU: When he arrived he greeted us and asked us as to how we are doing and faring and he said to me I must go in and phone the other two, and I did just that.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you ever see the radio transmitter?

MR MAKHUBU: I thought I explained to you that it was broken and in pieces, I could not explain, but I was told subsequently as to what it was.

MR RICHARD: So by the time you saw it, it was in pieces?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson with respect, I think this line of questioning doesn't take us anywhere. The witness explained in detail yesterday that actually what happened was he was sent into the house, when he came back he was shown pieces of what was said to be a transmitter, and I'm not sure where my learned friend is leading by being repetitious unnecessarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Nor am I ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Well, on what basis can you confirm that it was a transmitter, other than the say-so of your commander?

MR KOOPEDI: The witness did explain that he was shown pieces of something he was told was a transmitter, he did not know whether it was a transmitter or not.

MR RICHARD: Did Mr Dube tell ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON

"He showed me a broken device and said that the deceased had been carrying a transmitter"

MR RICHARD: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: What happened to the broken pieces?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember what happened to them.

MR RICHARD: How was Sicelo behaving at this stage, what was his demeanour, was he fearful, cheerful, worried?

MR MAKHUBU: When I came back I found the situation changed, he was not as comfortable as he was in the morning.

MR RICHARD: Did your commander explain why he had smashed the device?

MR MAKHUBU: He explained to me afterwards.

MR RICHARD: Then is it correct that you and Mr Dube had a discussion and it was then, while Mr Dhlomo was inside the house, that Mr Dube ordered you to execute Mr Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Did you discuss it and debate it or did he just give an express command, this will happen?

MR MAKHUBU: I thought I explained that yesterday, that we did briefly discuss it. It was not just an absolute order, I had also had an input. We talked briefly about it.

MR RICHARD: Well what was your input, what did you say?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what you want me to say. Are you referring as to whether I agreed or disagreed with the opinion or with that what he said?

CHAIRPERSON: You have just said: " I also had a input", and you are now being asked what you mean by that.

MR MAKHUBU: He explained the situation that he discovered that device and what we have to do is that, because what we had agreed with earlier on in our meeting was we will have to ask him. What I said to him was; "you see this thing of interrogating him will get me into trouble or problems because if we had already discovered something like this, I don't see why we should be talking any further with him."

MR RICHARD: So your attitude was that there was nothing really to say, you had found this device and that was it, the decision was made?

MR MAKHUBU: That's what is surfacing.

MR RICHARD: Were you angry with Sicelo on being told that he was an informer?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand.

MR RICHARD: Were you angry with the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't have an appropriate word here, I don't have an ideal word to explain this. I think I was devastated. I don't think being angry and devastated means the same thing, but I think I was devastated.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us, I think, that Dube gave you a copy of his statement.

MR MAKHUBU: What I said is that he showed it to me because he had a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And in his statement Dube says the deceased said that this so-called transmitter belonged to his friend's, is that what Dube told you?

MR MAKHUBU: If my memory serves me well he first said it was his friend's, it belonged to his friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did he say this to?

MR MAKHUBU: To him, Dube that is, not me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Dube tell you this?

MR MAKHUBU: During that brief time he did not say that, he told me that afterwards.

MR RICHARD: Were you present at any stage when Sicelo confessed his alleged complicity with the Security Police?

MR MAKHUBU: Confessing or confirming to who?

MR RICHARD: Did you hear the deceased at any stage say to anyone within your earshot he worked for the Security Police?

MR MAKHUBU: He did not say that in my presence.

MR RICHARD: So you relied entirely on Mr Dube's words?

MR MAKHUBU: I may say so.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Dube tell you on that occasion, during the brief discussion, that he worked for the Security Police?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, he said that.

CHAIRPERSON: During the brief discussion or did he tell you later?

MR MAKHUBU: He told me during that brief discussion.

MR RICHARD: Did Mr Dube make any mention of the missing guns?

MR MAKHUBU: What I heard was the guns were confiscated.

MR RICHARD: When did you hear that?

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that he mentioned that to me at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Who mentioned it? Who mentioned it, Mr Dube or the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: Mr Dube was relaying to me what the deceased had said to him.

ADV SANDI: Is that also during the brief discussion you had with Dube?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Why was it necessary to fetch Mr Zungu and Mr Tshabalala to witness the execution?

MR MAKHUBU: If I give a different answer I will be lying, but first before he told me that he discovered what he discovered, I had already went inside the house to phone them, and when we were leaving it was automatic that we should fetch them or they should be present or they should come.

CHAIRPERSON: It's automatic that you should want two other people to observe you committing murder, is it?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't see any problem there.

MR RICHARD: Now where was your weapon at that stage?

MR MAKHUBU: You mean where?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR MAKHUBU: In what way?

MR RICHARD: Where was your weapon, was it in the cupboard, in your pocket?

MR MAKHUBU: It was on my waist where I used to keep it.

MR RICHARD: And where was it that morning?

MR MAKHUBU: I always have my weapon, I never leave home without it.

MR RICHARD: So you were happy to have a weapon on your person even though there was the possibility that the police might be aware, through Mr Sicelo Dhlomo, where you were?

MR MAKHUBU: I have no problem or I had no problem with that because I was in a fight. Whether I had it or not, that was my business and against them, fighting against them. So that does not shake me one bit.

MR RICHARD: So from you say then, when you walked away from your house off to the school and to fetch the other two and onwards towards the tree, you were quite happy to wear this weapon, carry this weapon through the township?

MR MAKHUBU: Do you think I carried my gun to show off or to walk pompously about that? Apartheid did not please us, I don't understand your line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: What was this weapon?

MR MAKHUBU: It was Makarov.

CHAIRPERSON: 9mm automatic, is that so?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that's the one.

CHAIRPERSON: They are large weapons, aren't they?

MR MAKHUBU: It's not large to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mm?

MR MAKHUBU: It's not large to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Not large to you?

MR RICHARD: When you reached either Mr Zungu or Mr Tshabalala first, what did you say to them?

MR MAKHUBU: When who reached?

MR MAKHUBU: When you - you walked into the township to go and fetch Mr Zungu and Mr Tshabalala, what did you say to the first one of them that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get on record who it was.

MR RICHARD: Sorry. Who did you go and fetch first?

MR MAKHUBU: I first went to Sipho.

MR RICHARD: Now you found him at home, what did you tell him?

MR MAKHUBU: I told him that we have to meet.

MR RICHARD: Did you explain why you had to meet?

MR MAKHUBU: I told him that Sicelo is around and he's with the commander presently.

MR RICHARD: Did you tell Sipho that you and your commander had already decided to execute him?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not say that to him.

MR RICHARD: Was there ever any discussion with Sipho about whether it was necessary to execute him or not?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know as to how you expect me to answer this, because I did not say that to him.

MR RICHARD: I asked you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying the question of execution was never raised with Sipho?

MR MAKHUBU: That's what I said.

MR RICHARD: When Sipho saw what was going to happen, did he say anything?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand as to what you want.

MR RICHARD: You took the deceased to this tree and at some point in time Mr Tshabalala must have become aware of what was going to happen, did he ever say anything about whether the deceased should or should not be executed?

MR MAKHUBU: What I said yesterday was, when we left Sipho and Sibongiseni were not told, I did not tell them rather as to what the decision was, and when we got there we did not have any discussion in relation to that, we only executed the action and brought to fruition what we discussed with the commander.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, when you got there the deceased was sitting under the tree and you just pulled your pistol from out of your belt and shot him in the top of the head, there was no discussion, nobody had an opportunity to say anything, is that so?

MR MAKHUBU: That's what I said.

MR RICHARD: Then if we go to paragraph 4 at page 10 of the bundle, which reads

"The circumstances that led myself, Sipho Tshabalala, Clive Makhubu and Sibongiseni Zungu to take a decisive decision to eliminate Sicelo Dhlomo were as follows:"

There you say it was a joint decision ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't say that, it's not his statement, he doesn't say it.

MR RICHARD: The statement ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone.

MR RICHARD: The statement by Mr Dube with which you associate yourself by saying

"See statement"

... says it was a joint decision.

MR MAKHUBU: That I heard and I saw it.

MR RICHARD: So the statement is wrong, correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't say it's not wrong.

MR RICHARD: If we go to paragraph 5 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it paragraph 5 you've been reading from?

MR RICHARD: No, that's paragraph 4, where there Mr Dube states the circumstances. At paragraph 5, there Mr Dube states he, Mr Dube, referring to himself as

"I immediately rushed to the three cell members in Emdeni. I found them also having suspicions about Sicelo Dhlomo."

Is that correct or not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: If I may say that I did phone to tell him that his disappearance is posing some problems to us. These are technical things, because I did explain or say that I'm the one who brought this to his attention.

CHAIRPERSON: What counsel is putting to you, if you would just listen to him, is that Mr Dube in his statement says that he rushed to the three cell members at Emdeni and that they then took a decision. Now on your evidence that is not true, is it?

MR MAKHUBU: That is what I was trying to explain.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not true, is it, he didn't rush to the three other members in Emdeni?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm the one who called him.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not prepared to say that what Mr Dube says is untrue? Do you feel you must back him up as far as you can?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not backing him up, I'm not supporting him either but what I'm understanding with Mr Dube is that he is not having a clear recollection of all the events and the sequence in which they took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, so as a result of his not having a clear recollection, is what he said in his statement untrue?

MR MAKHUBU: This is why I answer the way I do, because I have realised that he is not having the clear recollection of all these things. If I was backing him up or supporting him for that matter, I will be concurring with his evidence through and through.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know that the others are not going to back that up. So you are not prepared to say, very well.

DR TSOTSI: When Mr Dube gave his evidence, did he adhere to this version of the facts that he went to the others, after the others and ...? Did you listen to his evidence when it was put to him did he adhere to it, did he say "yes, I stand by that statement"?

MR MAKHUBU: In other words are you suggesting that I must turn around my evidence and agree to what he has said or agree with him?

DR TSOTSI: No, no, no, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Dube gave evidence, you listened to him.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I listened to him although I was not here all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And you're being asked did he in his evidence say that he rushed to the three cell members in Emdeni or did he give a different version?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know how to reiterate this, because I did say that I'm the one who called him. How else must I put this?

CHAIRPERSON: You are being asked about the evidence Mr Dube gave here which you listened to. Did he say in that evidence that he rushed to the three cell members in Emdeni? He was asked about it, wasn't he?

MR MAKHUBU: He was asked and how am I featuring in that questioning of Dube because I'm telling you what I know.

CHAIRPERSON: You know what he said yesterday. You can't suddenly shut your mind to things you're being asked about what was said. Don't you want to answer the question? ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, the witness said in response to the question that was he listening to evidence, that he did listen to evidence but at times he did go out.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not what he said earlier, but we'll leave it there if you want to abide by that answer.

MR RICHARD: Very well. When in May 1997 you signed your application and read it, didn't you know then that Mr Dube's statement was incorrect?

MR MAKHUBU: You asked me yesterday about this statement and I told you that this is a very general and broad statement.

MR RICHARD: Sitting before this Committee you have given a version very different to what is said in this statement, and I refer you particularly to paragraph 5 where you associate yourself with the statement

"We then took an unfortunate decision to eliminate Sicelo Dhlomo."

Today you tell us that neither Mr Tshabalala nor Mr Zungu were party to that decision, is that not a complete contradiction, that's not a generality, do you agree with me? How do you reconcile those two statements?

MR MAKHUBU: If my memory serves me well, when Dube tendered his evidence he told you that he took this decision alone. He did say that to you.

MR RICHARD: But here Mr Dube puts in a sworn statement saying he didn't take it alone, he took it with the other three as well, including Mr Zungu and Mr Tshabalala. My question is, how can that be described as a generality? Please tell me how do you reconcile the contradiction.

MR MAKHUBU: The way you look at this thing you see contradiction but that's not how I perceive it. And if I attempt to explain in another way, it's fatal. But he did say that the reason why he said, he wrote this way is that the command decision is the unit decision. There's no democracy.

When he has taken a decision that is a decision for the unit. He did say that, he tendered that evidence to that effect to you yesterday and told you that we were together, the two of us, when this decision was taken. That I did mention.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand though that you abide by your application for amnesty in which, when you were asked to deal with such things as justifications, you keep saying refer to the commander's statement? That is the statement that he made which you say you were shown a copy of. That is what your application for amnesty is based on, do you realise that?

MR MAKHUBU: I hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still say that it is based on what is contained in that statement?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I adhere to that.

MR RICHARD: Do you think that execution was the only option available to you or Mr Dube at the time?

MR MAKHUBU: That was the option we had, only option rather.

MR RICHARD: Now during the period between the 24th of January and the beginning of October, had anyone of your cell members other than Mr Dhlomo been arrested or detained?

MR MAKHUBU: Referring to which period?

MR RICHARD: October '87 to January '88.

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember anything in relation to detention or arrest of any other cell members.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you hadn't been arrested, although you walked around with a Makarov pistol in your belt all the time, is that so?

MR MAKHUBU: I never was arrested in possession of a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you arrested at all, were you taken in for questioning?

MR MAKHUBU: I explained that I was arrested in '98, 6 November and I was released June '87.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You're being asked about October '87 to January '88.

MR MAKHUBU: No, I never was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your house searched?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember any of that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were living at home then?

MR MAKHUBU: I was not living at home then.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you living?

MR MAKHUBU: I had my places where I used to live.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in different places all the time?

MR MAKHUBU: I had different places, I never used one place.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would be very difficult to find you?

MR MAKHUBU: That's what I'm saying, those are my words.

CHAIRPERSON: So how could the deceased have come and reported to you if you weren't at home?

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that he came to one of my harbouring places and got the message. That's what I said yesterday if I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he come to one of your harbouring places and get the message?

MR MAKHUBU: First, he knew that it was not easy to get hold of me at home, so in this one particular harbouring place he came and I still had communication with him from that base. That's where I left a message that anyone who will come looking for me I would be somewhere or at home. And they also knew that they were not entitled to furnish any kind of information to just any person, only specific people.

CHAIRPERSON: So you now say he was looking for you and he went to one of your harbouring places and got a message to find you at home?

MR MAKHUBU: I think that's what I said.

ADV SANDI: When was that, Mr Makhubu, was that during the period the deceased had disappeared?

MR MAKHUBU: That happened in the morning on the 24th of January before he came to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh so you already ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he came to you that morning he already had information that you were to be found at your home on that day?

MR MAKHUBU: That's exactly what I said.

MR RICHARD: Now taking into account that on your version there had been no communication between the deceased and the cell for a considerable period, what information could he have given to the police that you were so worried about?

MR MAKHUBU: There's so much he could have furnished to the police. And at that time to capture an MK soldier was valuable. So he had so much he could have disclosed to the police and in also in relation to the units as well. He could have furnished so much to the police.

ADV SANDI: But he could also have given the police your home telephone number.

MR MAKHUBU: The police had my telephone number at home that is.

CHAIRPERSON: But on this day he could have told the police that you the Umkhonto, not only soldier but commander of the unit, would be at your home where you were, and later during the day he could have told the police that the other overall commander would also be there. So they could have arrested all of you, couldn't they, if he had told them?

MR MAKHUBU: I won't speak on his behalf.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that that afternoon he hardly needed a transmitter if he had been an informer.

MR MAKHUBU: That's what you are saying, it's not me who is saying that.

MR RICHARD: And taking into account that he never took part in any activity or mission with the cell, other than to locate places of hiding, if I remember you, it would have been a simple matter to just have nothing further to do with him, there was no need to execute him.

MR MAKHUBU: What were we supposed to do according to you?

MR RICHARD: Have no more contact with him, tell him to leave the cell. You had no evidence that he had informed on the cell, nothing had happened despite the presence of this supposed transmitter still nothing happened. I'm putting it to you that even if you believed he was an informer, execution was hardly necessary in those circumstances.

MR MAKHUBU: As you say. That is your opinion. I was in a fight then and you were not.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest something rather different, that from what we are now told by Mr Dube, on that afternoon without him having been put under any pressure in any way he told Mr Dube that he had been turned by the police and had operated with them. That is what we have heard in evidence, isn't it?

MR MAKHUBU: That I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not have been extremely important for the underground activities, activists, to find out from him as much as he could tell them about the police actions with informers, whether he had met any other informers, whether he knew who the handlers were and information of that nature? Because it appeared from what Mr Dube said, that he was now prepared to disclose things.

MR MAKHUBU: I hear all what you say.

CHAIRPERSON: Well didn't you think it was important to find out what he'd told them about you, what names he had given to the police, matters of that kind?

MR MAKHUBU: If it was today, I think this is what I could do but then it's a different time, it was a different situation altogether. An informer then meant something.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because what amazes me, and the more I hear the more difficult I find it to accept it, is that Mr Dube who is the overall commander of numerous cells gets told by this man that he is an informer, doesn't try to find out what he has told the police, kills him but then goes on carrying on his activities for another six months or so before he leaves the country to go to Lusaka. It just doesn't make sense to me.

MR MAKHUBU: Maybe Dube could be able to inject some sense in that, not me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what about you, this was a member of your cell? Surely it was important to you to know so you should break up your cell, form new cells, whether the police knew about your cells, would watch you? Wasn't that important to you to know? Are you not prepared to answer that question?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know how to answer this question because you're telling me it was of great importance to this and that, at the end none of that happened. This is why I am quiet.

CHAIRPERSON: None of it happened, you made no attempt to find out what this alleged informer had told the police, what they knew about you, whether you were in danger.

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that we did not ask any of that.

ADV SANDI: You did not want to ask any of that, Mr Makhubu, not so?

MR MAKHUBU: What I explained, and I will again explain, is that the last time we met was that we'll sit down and talk to him, but the whole thing changed altogether that day, we decided the way we decided.

ADV SANDI: If you sincerely - if you really had a suspicion that Sicelo was an informer, were you not concerned that one of the things he would have told the police was your telephone number? And when you phoned Sipho and Precious, were you not concerned that perhaps the police would have been listening in to the conversation and they would know what you were planning and where you were going to be?

MR MAKHUBU: If my memory serves me well I did not say I called to discuss with them on the phone as to what we were going to do, the details, but what I said is I called and I told them to remain, to be alert, on standby.

ADV SANDI: Ja, the police - that is exactly what the police would have been listening in to. I mean if they were listening in they would have heard that.

MR MAKHUBU: No, I don't know how to answer you now because I'm not a police force member and I don't know if they were monitoring my house phone or not, so I'm not is a position to explain further.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but didn't the police normally intercept telephones of the activists in those days?

MR MAKHUBU: Anywhere a phone would be used whether intercepted or not, but you'll still continue using the phone.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: After the shooting where did you live?

MR MAKHUBU: I had my places where I lived.

MR RICHARD: Did you continue however periodically going to your home?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I periodically went home.

MR RICHARD: And where did Sipho live?

MR MAKHUBU: He also had his own place.

MR RICHARD: But is it not correct he also continued going to his own home?

MR MAKHUBU: I never said a person would not at all visit their respective places. You would have your own ways and means to show at your house. I did not completely disappear from home so that they did not even once see me subsequently, I used to show up at home.

MR RICHARD: Was your home ever raided?

MR MAKHUBU: When?

MR RICHARD: After Sicelo's death.

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: What did you do with the firearm?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what you mean because that was my weapon and I kept it with me.

MR RICHARD: After the shooting, did you pick up the spent cartridge?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not.

MR RICHARD: Where is the weapon today?

MR MAKHUBU: That was confiscated at a certain raid.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR MAKHUBU: During late 1988.

MR RICHARD: Where was this raid?

MR MAKHUBU: In Emdeni.

MR RICHARD: After the deceased was shot, what ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, just to get more detail on that.

Whose house was raided at Emdeni?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know the address, but it was one place we used.

MR RICHARD: After the deceased was shot, what was the position of his body? In what position did you leave him?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand what you mean, the position of his body after he was shot?

MR RICHARD: Was he lying on his face or on his back or on his side, still sitting?

MR MAKHUBU: I won't be able to remember such details, but after I shot him because he was sitting on the stone I shot him and he fell on the ground.

MR RICHARD: Did he fall on his face or his back?

MR MAKHUBU: On his face. Excuse me? Yes, on his face, that's correct.

MR RICHARD: We have heard that you had no direct knowledge that the deceased was an informer, do you still think he was an informer?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't want to answer that question.

MR RICHARD: Because I put it to you that the story is in fact far simpler than anything that we've heard. If you refer to page 63 of the bundle, there is a report which is substantially correct, that on the 20th of January, that's five days before the shooting, four days before the shooting, the deceased was detained at the offices of the Detainees Parents Support Committee, not assaulted, taken down to John Vorster Square and signed a statement. In a sworn statement I'm reading he said that he had been invited - in that statement he declares that he implicated the makers of this television programme as forcing him to say what he did say. And there's various version of this. Isn't it that it was as a result of that arrest that you and your commander for whatever reason decided to label him as an informer, quite incorrectly?

MR MAKHUBU: My reasons are not based on what you have said, I told you about things that happened before.

MR RICHARD: Isn't it significant to you that within a few weeks of that television programme, "Children of Apartheid" being broadcast the deceased died?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand when you say is it not significant to me.

MR RICHARD: Now tell me, there is evidence that shortly before his departure for Soweto that Saturday the deceased had over R1 000 in his pocket, do you know what happened to the money that was on the deceased's person?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Did anyone remove the money from him?

MR MAKHUBU: I have no idea.

MR RICHARD: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.

When you made your application for amnesty I take it that you knew that you were to make full disclosure for you to get amnesty, am I correct?

MR MAKHUBU: What I know is that I have to disclose everything with regards to the application that I've submitted.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. Now in your application why did you not disclose that you shot and killed Sicelo? When I say "you" I refer to you as an individual.

MR MAKHUBU: When you say myself I don't understand, please repeat.

MR MAPOMA: I'm saying when you made your application why did you not disclose that you shot and killed the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure if I never at all mentioned that because I only submitted an amnesty application. As to whether I wrote that or not I don't remember.

MR MAPOMA: Let me remind you. In your application you were asked at paragraph 9(a).4 to give the nature and particulars of the murder. You say

"A person was shot with a Makarov pistol."

MR MAKHUBU: Is that what I've written?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

MR MAKHUBU: Didn't I say it's me?

MR MAPOMA: No, you did not, you say he was shot.

MR MAKHUBU: But I've already said anyway, I've mentioned it now in my evidence.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I understand that Sir, but my question is why did you not say at the time you were making the application, that you shot and killed Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: I have no answer to your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you see it's complicated further I think because you refer from time to time to Dube's statement which we have heard a lot of, and in Dube's statement he doesn't say who shot him either.

MR MAKHUBU: As I said I don't have an answer to that question as I am also talking about my application. I don't see any problem even though it does not appear on my application, but I have admitted now and I have said it in my evidence-in-chief.

MR MAPOMA: Do I understand your evidence to say that Sipho and Sibongiseni did nothing in the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: Briefly, they did not participate physically.

MR MAPOMA: And they did not participate even orally, is that so? Because at the time they arrived you had already discussed the matter and made a decision that you are going to kill this gentleman and they only witnessed you killing him, is that a true reflection of what happened?

MR MAKHUBU: That's not necessarily a picture that I want you to have, but that's exactly how it happened.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did Sipho and Sibongiseni do or say anything to associate themselves with the killing of Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand.

ADV SANDI: Did any one of the two, that is the two Sipho and Sibongiseni, say they agreed that what you were doing was right, to kill Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: When we explained to them afterwards they did not object.

ADV SANDI: Did they say you did a good thing to kill Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: It's difficult for me to relay exactly what they said or the words they uttered, but what I know is they did not object to this.

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if it would be convenient to take the short adjournment a little early today rather than break into the next applicant's evidence. What is your attitude? Take the adjournment now, then he can continue uninterrupted?

MR KOOPEDI: It will be convenient to take the adjournment now. I'm not sure what my learned friend's situation is like.

MR RICHARD: I agree with what the Chairperson suggested.

MR MAPOMA: I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment and then recommence thereafter.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

SIPHO ALFRED TSHABALALA

MR KOOPEDI: May I be allowed to call the next applicant, Mr Tshabalala. Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Can you please put your full names on record.

SIPHO ALFRED TSHABALALA: (sworn states)

ADV SANDI: What language are you going to testify in, Mr Tshabalala?

MR TSHABALALA: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: And is the question being interpreted to you in Zulu?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: He is on the right channel, Chairperson, thank you. May we then proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you.

Mr Tshabalala, where do you reside?

MR TSHABALALA: At Emdeni.

MR KOOPEDI: Are you employed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I am.

MR KOOPEDI: Where?

MR TSHABALALA: I work for the ANC.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is it correct that you are a co-applicant in the amnesty application for the killing of the late Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now in your application form, page 2, paragraph 9(a)ii you indicate that this incident occurred in 1987, could it have been in fact in 1988?

MR TSHABALALA: This was a mistake.

MR KOOPEDI: Now at the time when this incident occurred where you a political activist?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you a member of any particular organisation or organisations?

MR TSHABALALA: At that time or are you referring to at the present moment?

MR KOOPEDI: At the time when this incident occurred.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I was a member of certain organisations.

MR KOOPEDI: Now the late Sicelo Dhlomo, did you know him?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I knew him.

MR KOOPEDI: How did you know him?

MR TSHABALALA: We were friends and comrades.

MR KOOPEDI: Now there's been evidence before this Honourable Committee that the two of you belonged to a cell, would that be accurate?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now to your knowledge, when did Sicelo come into this cell? When did he become a member of this cell?

MR TSHABALALA: It could have been at the end of August or the beginning of September 1987.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you recall who the commander was and in fact - do you know who the commander was, the commandant was in this cell?

MR TSHABALALA: The commander was the commandant.

MR KOOPEDI: I didn't get that. Who was the commander?

MR TSHABALALA: He was called Clive Makhubu. Maybe I should explain that there were two commanders, one I can refer to as an immediate commander who is Clive Makhubu and then the other one was Pat.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Pat, would Pat be the first applicant, Mr Dube who had appeared before this Honourable Committee?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now what was your involvement in the killing of Sicelo? Are you involved in any way with that killing?

MR TSHABALALA: There is not much that I did except that I was present when he was killed.

MR KOOPEDI: Now his killing in your mind, do you associate it with a political motive?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do.

MR KOOPEDI: In what way?

MR TSHABALALA: After he had been killed it was explained to me why he had been killed.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say you associate it with a political motive, that is only based on what you were told by, I think it was Mr Dube?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you come before this Honourable Committee to ask for amnesty for your involvement in that killing, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct, I'm asking amnesty.

MR KOOPEDI: Other than seeking amnesty, would you like to take this opportunity to say anything for the benefit of this Committee or anyone?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat that question.

MR KOOPEDI: Is there anything that you wish to say, other than what you have said?

MR TSHABALALA: I must say that as I am seeking amnesty I feel bad with regards to the families of ...(indistinct) Dhlomo and their friends and relatives, that they should lose a member of their family because of an act of which I was part. That is why I feel that I should seek amnesty.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson that will be all for now on our side, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

DR TSOTSI: Just one question. You said you were a member of certain organisations, you didn't mention them. What organisations were these of which you were a member?

MR TSHABALALA: I was a member of the Soweto Students Congress. I was also a member of the ANC underground structures.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now you described yourself as a friend and comrade of the deceased, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: For how long had you known him?

MR TSHABALALA: If I'm not mistaken I think I knew him as from 1986.

MR RICHARD: And his family describe his relationship with you as close, in fact you were the best of friends. Do you agree with that statement?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: And in fact you were a regular visitor at the Dhlomo Njele household.

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: In fact the Dhlomo family treated you as a member of their family.

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: And - so when you say you were a member of Sosco, that's the Soweto Students Congress, one of your colleagues at that organisation was the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now what happened in May 1986?

MR TSHABALALA: A lot happened, but briefly, there was a war, some of us were attacked by a group we referred to as amazinzimo at that time. Sicelo's home was burnt down when they were attacked by those people. My home was also attacked and the house was burnt down, and they also killed my brother. A lot of other people were injured on that attack.

MR RICHARD: Indeed during May that year for those reasons, the deceased left home and looked for a safe place to live. Do you recall?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, like everybody else at that time. He was not the only one.

MR RICHARD: And then in June that year, do you remember his detentions?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: After his detention, did he discuss it with you?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember quite well.

MR RICHARD: Did he tell you that he had been tortured and assaulted and in detention, that he'd been under pressure to become an informer, but he refused?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it happened because that happened to everyone, all of us were being detained at that time.

MR RICHARD: And the experience he relates wasn't unusual?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that was part of our lifestyle.

MR RICHARD: Then do you recall him being prosecuted for an attempted murder of a teacher?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do.

MR RICHARD: What happened in that prosecution?

MR TSHABALALA: There was a trial and they were prosecuted and they received a suspended sentence and were told to disassociate themselves with what they'd been prosecuted for.

MR RICHARD: My instructions, to speed it up, were that he was acquitted of the attempted murder charge but then sometime later he was charged with possession of a firearm, ...(indistinct) convicted and given a five year sentence. Were you aware of those incidents?

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot remember everything because people were arrested and detained all the time.

MR RICHARD: Very well. Do you know what the DPS is, Detainees Parents Support Committee?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do, it's the Detainees Parents Support Committee.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever go to their offices?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: For what?

MR TSHABALALA: As the name suggests, as a person who had been detained a number of times I would go there in that capacity.

MR RICHARD: And were you aware that the late Sicelo Dhlomo worked there?

MR TSHABALALA: I know that he used to do volunteer work there.

MR RICHARD: Did you get involved in their work?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: Then were you aware of the deceased's activities in making a television documentary called: "Children under Apartheid"?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I did.

MR RICHARD: While he was making it did he discuss his activities with you?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't know whether he did, but it was something that we knew about.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you're not placing too much value on the word "discuss". I don't think counsel means that you had formal discussions about them, what he means is that did you as friends talk about these things?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, he did talk about it.

MR RICHARD: And he discussed the radio interviews he was doing with Dutch television and the British Broadcasting Corporation?

MR TSHABALALA: He did not go into the details, but I did see the video cassettes after some time.

MR RICHARD: Did you watch the video cassettes on a television set, on a VCR?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not remember whether I saw it on TV, but I had the video cassette. I had one for myself.

MR RICHARD: So the deceased's activities in this regard were widely known and very public amongst his circle of friends?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I can say that.

MR RICHARD: Now when your legal representative asked you the question when did you recruit the deceased, you stated very quickly and very certainly August/September 1987.

MR TSHABALALA: That is what I said.

MR RICHARD: So when people put it earlier in the year you think their memory is not correct.

MR TSHABALALA: I would not dispute it.

MR RICHARD: But you're certain that it was as late as potentially September in the year?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR RICHARD: Now what motivated you to recruit the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: Firstly, the deceased was my friend, a person that I knew I could trust and I knew that he could maintain secrecy, and that he had maintained a high level in the political arena.

MR RICHARD: And in fact from your point of view he was a desirable and valuable person to recruit, public figure.

MR TSHABALALA: Not because he was a public figure, but I felt that he could fit into that category of desirable people.

MR RICHARD: What did you tell the first applicant, Mr Dube about the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: Are you - what ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: At the time that you proposed that he join the cell, what did you tell Mr Dube?

MR TSHABALALA: Let me put it this way. I contacted the commander, Clive Makhubu and I recommended Sicelo. I did not speak to Dube.

MR RICHARD: What did you tell Clive Makhubu?

MR TSHABALALA: I told him that as I had been requested to find somebody with whom we could work, I had identified Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR RICHARD: Now can you explain what the reporting obligations for cell members was to each other and to their immediate commander.

MR TSHABALALA: Are you referring to the report I had to make after I recruited Sicelo?

MR RICHARD: What were ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR RICHARD: What were the members of a cell required to do regarding reporting of their activities and their plans?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not know if I get your question clearly.

MR RICHARD: Have you been present over the last two days? You've heard evidence that cell members were required to report their activities, could you explain your version of that?

MR TSHABALALA: I must say that some of these activities were simple and obvious, but there were time when you had to report about activities which were not so simple. For example, if I were to visit a relative in Daveyton and I would be absent for a while, there would be a need for me to report to the commander that I have to go visit my relatives. I think that is how I can respond to your question.

MR RICHARD: Did you do this personally from the very beginning of your membership of the cell?

MR TSHABALALA: What are you referring to?

MR RICHARD: When you joined the cell, you personally, did you immediately start reporting to your commander, that's Clive, if you went to Daveyton to visit a relative or any such activity? - from the very beginning.

MR TSHABALALA: Those were some of the rules and principles which had been given to me, and I followed them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what you said, Mr Tshabalala, and I can understand it, is you said if you were going to go and visit a relative for some time, that is if you were going to be away for some time you reported the fact.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I said that.

ADV SANDI: But you also say some of the activities were quite simple and obvious, can you explain what you mean by that?

MR TSHABALALA: I'm trying to explain that as Clive Makhubu was a commander and he was mostly aware of the activities of the student movement of that time, some of the things that were happening, or that we did, were obvious to him, some things that may not have been so obvious to a person who was not aware of the situation.

ADV SANDI: So if one got involved in those things which you say were obvious to Mr Makhubu, he would not have to give a report to him because he knew about them?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat the question.

ADV SANDI: Should one understand you to say that it was not always required that one should give reports every now and then as to where he goes?

MR TSHABALALA: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV SANDI: Okay, let's leave it, maybe it's too simple. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what you were saying weren't you is that you were a student activist, as was the deceased, and you carried on these activities. And a lot of them were very well-known, and the students were holding protest meetings, everybody knew about it? So there was no need to report things like that.

MR TSHABALALA: What I said was some things were obvious.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have to tell him what you were doing in the line of student activities, but some things he didn't know about you would tell him about?

MR TSHABALALA: My problem with the question is that it is too broad. If maybe you were referring yourself to a specific activity and date and enquire on that activity, maybe I could have a better response to the question.

CHAIRPERSON: What I mean is you were all, as I understand it, active people and you didn't rush along telling your commander every single thing you were doing, he knew that you were a student activist and you were taking part in these activities.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

And you personally knew in any case that the deceased would regularly go into the city centre into Johannesburg from Soweto to do his DPSC activities.

MR TSHABALALA: What time are you referring to?

MR RICHARD: The DPSC had its offices here in Johannesburg, the deceased would go there on a regular basis as a voluntary worker and do whatever a voluntary worker does, and you knew that.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I knew.

MR RICHARD: And you also knew that he went there very often.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I knew about that.

MR RICHARD: And it certainly would not be expected of anyone, particularly the deceased, to report to anyone when he was going to the DPSC or not, it was part of his normal activities at the time.

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat.

MR RICHARD: Was it not completely normal and ordinary for the deceased to go into Johannesburg on a very regular basis and work at the offices of the DPSC?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And you personally knew that he did that?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that's what I said.

MR RICHARD: And there was no expectation that he would have to report his trips to the DPSC to either you or anyone else.

MR TSHABALALA: There was no need to report to me, Sipho Tshabalala because I knew about it.

MR RICHARD: Or to Clive Makhubu.

MR TSHABALALA: I haven't said so.

MR RICHARD: I'm asking whether that's so.

MR TSHABALALA: There might be a need with regards to Clive.

MR RICHARD: You were there at the time, was there a need at the time?

MR TSHABALALA: I think there might have been.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't it depend on how long he was going to be away for? If he was just going in in the morning to do his work and coming back in the afternoon, there was no need to report.

MR TSHABALALA: I must mention that Sicelo did not come home every evening. What makes it difficult for me is that I am not aware, I do not know what period you are referring to as of this moment. I can give better responses if I'm referred a specific time frame.

MR RICHARD: On your evidence the deceased joined no earlier, and I'm asking you to confirm that, than August 1987 and no later than September 1987. Now during that period August/September/October, that's the period we're talking about.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I understand that.

MR RICHARD: And if I understand your evidence, you were perfectly aware that on a very regular basis the deceased would go into Johannesburg and not come back that night and would stay with people in Johannesburg -he was your friend.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I knew about it.

MR RICHARD: Did you know the names of telephone numbers or addresses of houses that he stayed in Johannesburg?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: Did you have any telephone numbers where you could contact him in Johannesburg?

MR TSHABALALA: Except for the DPSC I did not have any others.

MR RICHARD: Did you know the name Joe Kawela?

MR TSHABALALA: Joe who? I do not know whether you're referring to the same Joe, but I do know a certain person called Joe, because I do not know his surname.

MR RICHARD: Did he work at the DPSC office?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: That is the same Joe. Now, is it correct that the accused was arrested on the 12th of October? - the deceased, I beg your pardon.

MR TSHABALALA: I know that he had been arrested in October 1987.

MR RICHARD: '87. What do you know about it?

MR TSHABALALA: That he had been arrested and released on the same day.

MR RICHARD: Where do you say he was arrested?

MR TSHABALALA: If I'm not mistaken he was arrested in Zola.

MR RICHARD: In Zola?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Is that near, on the way between home and school? Between his home and school.

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot say that with certainty because the house in which they were arrested is far from the way that they would normally take to school.

MR RICHARD: How did you learn about this arrest?

MR TSHABALALA: The people that he had been arrested with explained and he also mentioned later on that he had been arrested.

MR RICHARD: What did he say happened to him?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat the question.

MR RICHARD: What did he say happened to him?

MR TSHABALALA: He did not get into details, but as a person who had also been detained it was apparent, it was obvious that he experienced the same treatment that everybody else did when they were arrested.

MR RICHARD: Now you say "they", "the house they", who is the "they" that you speak of?

MR TSHABALALA: Those are the people I can refer to as members of the Sosco leadership at the time.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember their names? - you were a member of Sosco.

MR TSHABALALA: One of them is Pax, another is Libelo, there may be Vusi as well. Those are just some of the names.

MR RICHARD: Now according to my instructions, what he reported, that on that date, 12 October 1987 he was detained on his way to school, those who detained him requested him to be an informer and offered him money, support and that his family would be better off. Would you contradict that?

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot dispute it because I was not arrested with him.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, let's put it this way.

Is that one of things he told you when he reported that he had been detained and what had happened to him? Did he tell you that his interrogators had tried to recruit him?

MR RICHARD: He said he had been interrogated, but he did not explain the details of what had been said to him or what he'd been questioned on.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been purely normal practice that the police tried to do these things?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, they normally did that.

CHAIRPERSON: They normally tried to get you to be an informer, told you that it would be much better for you, they would look after you and all that sort of thing?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now did Mr Dhlomo report to you that he was kicked and assaulted and that he was released the same day?

MR TSHABALALA: I did say that he did not go into details, but if a person tells you that he had been interrogated you would understand what he meant.

MR RICHARD: Now we know when the arrest happened, but when did Mr Dhlomo tell you about the arrest?

MR TSHABALALA: It's obvious that he told me after he'd been released.

MR RICHARD: One day afterwards, one week afterwards?

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot remember, but we did not see each other on the very same day that he was released.

MR RICHARD: So was it some days later?

MR TSHABALALA: It's possible.

MR RICHARD: Now at that stage, and as a result of that arrest, ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I just interpose for a minute?

Where was this place he was telling you all this?

MR TSHABALALA: We were at one of my hide-outs.

ADV SANDI: And where was that hide-out?

MR TSHABALALA: It's difficult for me to remember because there were several, but I think it was at Emdeni.

ADV SANDI: Did he come to see you there at this hide-out?

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot remember how it happened because we used to meet in various ways. Sometimes I would go to his home, sometimes he would come to my home or to my hide-out, but it is difficult to remember clearly how or what happened.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Now after that arrest, according the deceased's mother, Sylvia Dhlomo Njeli, she made contact with the firm Ishmail Ayob and Associates and requested assistance in finding somewhere for the deceased to stay as it was no longer safe for him to be in Soweto even though he was not at that stage staying at home on a regular basis. Did you receive any sort of intimation from the deceased, you were his close friend?

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot remember clearly, but I had my own hide-outs which I could share with him and he also had his own hide-outs as an activist at the time.

MR RICHARD: And some of his hide-outs were in the city centre, in and around Johannesburg, in the suburbs, not in Soweto.

MR TSHABALALA: I cannot confirm or say that with certainty.

MR RICHARD: Now at this stage, on your version of the date of his recruitment he had been a member of the cell for some two and a half months, which was not for long, August, September and 12 days, 14 days of October.

MR TSHABALALA: I will not commit myself to that time period, two and a half months, but at that time he was already a member of the cell.

MR RICHARD: Had he been trained at that stage?

MR TSHABALALA: I think so.

MR RICHARD: How much training had he received?

MR TSHABALALA: It is difficult to remember because that training does not resemble the training you receive at school where it is specified what you do on this day and that day.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but were you there when he was receiving training?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I would sometimes - I think I was present at all times.

MR RICHARD: At any stage during this period did you receive a report that he'd been arrested in possession of a handgun and a handgrenade?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I knew about it. Please repeat the question, I may have responded to something ...

MR RICHARD: In and during the period October 1987, did you receive any reports that the deceased had been arrested while in possession of a firearm and a handgrenade?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't think so.

MR RICHARD: So the Sosco people certainly made no such report, the people that he was arrested with?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat that question.

MR RICHARD: You used the word "they", "they" were other Sosco people and none of them made such a report that you are aware of?

MR TSHABALALA: Are you referring to the incident when Sicelo was arrested with a Makarov pistol and a handgrenade? Are you asking then that, did anybody inform me about that, amongst the people that he was arrested with?

MR RICHARD: You've answered a question that during October 1987 you didn't receive any reports of that nature, that he was arrested with a pistol and a handgrenade. You said no, you didn't, if I understood you correctly. Was there any other such report at any time?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was at the beginning of the year that we got such a report, in fact I think it was after he had been killed.

MR RICHARD: From where did you get that report?

MR TSHABALALA: From comrade Pat.

MR RICHARD: But you received that report after he had been killed.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR RICHARD: So that means you can tell us nothing at all about Mr Dube's allegations that the deceased was arrested in October at Khotso House, with a gun and a grenade?

MR TSHABALALA: I think we are making a mistake somewhere here. Sicelo was arrested in October together with other Sosco leaders at the time. Sicelo was also arrested at the beginning of the year. This was in the media. It was also reported that he had been released a few hours later. What I am saying is that I only heard that in that January 1988 arrest he had been arrested in possession of a pistol and a handgrenade. I only learnt of it after his death.

MR RICHARD: I'm dealing with October 1987, I'm not dealing with January '88. I will come to the 20th of January 1988.

From what you say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the arrest in October '87 was with a number of other Sosco members ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He has said that, he has told us all about it. Why do you have to repeat, repeat, repeat?

MR RICHARD: Because on the 20th of January 1987, '88, it is correct that the deceased was arrested at Khotso House in the presence of other DPSC members, who will say there were no firearms at all.

MR TSHABALALA: There's nothing wrong with them explaining that.

MR RICHARD: And the only intimation you have that on that arrest that firearms were involved, comes from the first applicant, Mr Dube.

MR TSHABALALA: That is what I'm saying.

MR RICHARD: And in fact you have no idea of how Mr Dube got that information.

MR TSHABALALA: No, I do not know. You are referring to the information that he was arrested in possession of these firearms?

MR RICHARD: Correct. And that when Mr Dube talks of an arrest in October '87, with firearms, he's mistaken, he's muddled the two arrests. Is that not what appears to be the case?

MR TSHABALALA: It is possible.

MR RICHARD: Now prior to October 1987, did Mr Dube or anyone else express or raise any concerns with you regarding the deceased's behaviour?

MR TSHABALALA: Prior to October 1987?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

MR TSHABALALA: No, I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: Was there any reason why anyone might have had any concerns about the deceased's behaviour before October 1987?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not know.

MR RICHARD: Now we know that after the 12 October 1987 arrest, the deceased made the decision to leave Soweto and live away, and it seems to be at that stage he was reported missing by the cell. Were you aware that he was missing?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: I'm sorry, I was distracted, what was your answer?

INTERPRETER: He said yes, he was aware of that.

MR RICHARD: You were aware of it, thank you. Now were you aware of it after the deceased reported to you about the 12 October detention?

MR TSHABALALA: What are you referring to?

MR RICHARD: The deceased reported to you some days after the 12 of October 1987 what had happened, then you say you are aware that he apparently went missing. When did you become aware of him being missing after he reported to you?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not remember just how long thereafter it was, but it was a while.

MR RICHARD: Now the evidence is that you received instructions to locate the deceased, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: What efforts did you make to locate him after October 1987?

MR TSHABALALA: I went to his home. I also went to Zola, as well as Orlando West.

MR RICHARD: And if Mr Dhlomo says you never went to the Dhlomo household during that period, what would you say?

MR TSHABALALA: I would not dispute it because it is not easy to remember everything as it happened, but I do remember that when Sicelo disappeared I did go to his home. I may not remember the specific dates when I did this, but I did go and I did not find him.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember who you spoke to, if you spoke to anyone?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: Did you speak to anyone?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now what other efforts did you make?

MR TSHABALALA: Do you mean ...

MR RICHARD: You went to the Dhlomo household, you went to some other places in Soweto, what other efforts did you make?

MR TSHABALALA: I mentioned three places, the Dhlomo household and I went to Zola, two houses in Zola and I also went to Orlando West, I actually visited one house at Orlando West.

MR RICHARD: Did you go to the DPSC offices or phone the DPSC offices?

MR TSHABALALA: I just telephoned the office.

MR RICHARD: Because the DPSC offices will say you went there and you were seen with the deceased during that period.

MR TSHABALALA: I would not dispute that because I should think they keep records of who goes in and out of the offices, but it is not easy for me to remember, but I do think that I made that phone call, trying to locate Sicelo.

MR RICHARD: And you went there and you saw the deceased on a number of occasions during that critical period when he's said to have been missing. You were seen with him, do you admit or deny it?

MR TSHABALALA: I will not dispute what, agree with it. I think you are trying to remind me of something.

MR RICHARD: I'm doing more than trying to remind you, I'm putting a proposition which you have to either say yes or no to.

MR TSHABALALA: It is not easy to deny or agree with what you are saying.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, sorry for that.

Mr Tshabalala, is there any reason why you would not have gone to the DPSC offices to look for Sicelo?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't know. Do you mean was there a reason that could have prevented me from going to the offices to look for Sicelo?

ADV SANDI: Yes, if you were looking for him and you knew that he was working at the DPSC, is there any reason why you wouldn't have gone there to look for him?

MR TSHABALALA: Do you mean was there a reason why I did not go there instead of phoning? I felt it was better to phone. That is what I remember doing.

ADV SANDI: I'm trying to understand your response to the questions that are being put to you by counsel for the family. Would I be correct to understand you to say that you might have gone there, but you cannot remember? You're not disputing those who say they saw you there and you were with the deceased? I'm trying to understand your response.

MR TSHABALALA: What I'm saying is, what I remember doing in locating Sicelo is what I have just explained as well as phoning the DPSC. If you say there are people from DPSC who will say they saw me with Sicelo at that time, I will not disagree or agree with it. With regards to the question if there was a reason why I would not go to the office at that time, my response is I do not know.

I must say that the situation that prevails now is different from the one that prevailed at the time. It is difficult to remember everything that happened.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now your answer then, and I can only work it out this way, is that you don't remember or are choosing not to tell us, which is it?

MR TSHABALALA: ...(no English interpretation)

DR TSOTSI: Did the witness say that he choose not to tell us?

MR RICHARD: Why do you choose not to tell us?

MR KOOPEDI: That's not what the witness said.

INTERPRETER: That is not what the witness said.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, what was the witness' answer?

INTERPRETER: He said he does not remember.

MR RICHARD: He does not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not quite what he said is it? As I recollect what he said is: "What I remember is that I telephoned there. However, if people say they saw me there, I can neither agree or disagree." He ...(indistinct) to say he remembers telephoning ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: He purports to say he remembers telephoning there, but he says: "it's a long time ago and if other people say they saw me there, well ..."

MR RICHARD: Very well. When you telephoned, what did you do, did you get through to somebody?

MR TSHABALALA: It is obvious that I did speak to someone and that person said Sicelo was not present.

MR RICHARD: Did you leave a message?

MR TSHABALALA: I asked them that if they see him he should get into contact with me.

MR RICHARD: How often did you telephone?

MR TSHABALALA: There is a noise in my headset.

MR RICHARD: How often did you telephone the DPSC?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: Was it more than once?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Did the deceased contact you in response to your messages?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: Now we turn to your amnesty application which is at page 13 of the bundle, and in that bundle on a number of occasions you say

"Refer to Silver's statement"

or:

"Refer to commander, refer to commander"

What do you mean by those statements? And example is at page 16 at paragraph (b). The question there that you filled in - page 16, paragraph (b):

"Your justification for regarding such acts, omissions or offences as acts, omissions or offences associated with a political objective"

Your answer is:

"Refer to Silver's statement"

What do you mean by that?

MR TSHABALALA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR RICHARD: You have a bundle in front of you, the pages are numbered. Page 16 in answer to a question appearing at paragraph 10(b) you make the statement

"Refer to Silver's statement"

What do you mean by that?

MR TSHABALALA: Are you trying to get me to explain what I meant by the statement?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR TSHABALALA: I was trying to say that: please refer to the statement made by Pat, on answering this particular question.

MR RICHARD: Now if you go to page 10 of the bundle, and there is a three page statement, is that the statement that you're referring to?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I heard you say "no", was that your answer?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, that's what I said.

MR RICHARD: Then what statement are you referring to you?

MR TSHABALALA: Page 6 of the bundle, (b).

MR RICHARD: You're referring to paragraph (b) as at page 6? Now when you took the oath to your application, did you intend to imply that those three points listed in paragraph (b) at page 6 are correct?

MR TSHABALALA: The problem I have with your question is that you are very broad. What I was trying to say here was that you should refer to the statement because I had seen it when it was submitted, and in this statement Silver is explaining, giving reasons why this took place. And because I only learnt of the reasons after the incidents had occurred that is why I put that statement in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: When you made your statement were you assisted in making it?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you shown the commander's application?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I'd seen it before.

CHAIRPERSON: Who showed it to you?

MR TSHABALALA: I requested from him that he should show it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And he did so?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: And it's after you'd seen him you filled in yours? You filled in yours after you'd seen his application?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Did you agree with his statement?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I would say so. I don't know whether you want me to explain further.

ADV SANDI: Mr Richard, which part of the statement by Silver do you want to draw his attention to?

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't say the statement, he says he agreed with his application.

ADV SANDI: No, I'm referring to Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Well the witness in answer to my question, if I heard the answer correctly, referred us to paragraph 10(b) which appears at page 6 of the bundle. There he refers to a statement

"I discovered that he was a police informer working with the MK cells I commanded."

That's what Mr Dube says, but that's the paragraph that I understand the witness to be referring us to.

CHAIRPERSON: This was all what Mr Dube had told you after the deceased had been shot, was it, that these had been the reasons?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Now in the paragraph that you refer us to, it also says

"Please find attached copy behind this amnesty form."

Was the document headed:

"Statement sworn under oath"

then attached to what you were shown?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: Now when you made your application for amnesty, did you believe that you were supporting and corroborating what Dube said in his application?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat the question.

MR RICHARD: When you put in your application and signed the form before a Commissioner of Oaths, did you or did you not believe that you were corroborating and supporting Mr Dube's application?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I was explaining that with regards tot he statement in paragraph B.

MR RICHARD: Now were you present when Clive Makhubu gave evidence this morning?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I was present.

MR RICHARD: Do you agree or disagree that at some point that evening he came to your house and said "come with me", and didn't explain. You heard the evidence, do you agree with what he said?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, he had telephoned before that I should wait for him.

MR RICHARD: When he came to your house did he explain where you were going or why you were going?

MR TSHABALALA: No, he did not explain.

MR RICHARD: When was it that you first became aware that the deceased, your friend was about to be executed?

MR TSHABALALA: I did not have knowledge thereof, I just saw it when it happened. I did not have prior information that he was going to be killed. I only got the explanation thereafter.

MR RICHARD: So that meant that until the previous applicant pulled out his weapon and shot your friend, you didn't know what was happening?

MR TSHABALALA: What do you when you say "what was happening"?

MR RICHARD: You say that you had no knowledge that Sicelo was about to be executed. And then, I'm extending it one step further, you became aware when you saw Clive Makhubu shoot him.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I saw that happening.

MR RICHARD: Did you simply watch the execution or did you try and stop it or ask for an explanation?

MR TSHABALALA: It happened quickly.

MR RICHARD: What was the effect on you?

MR TSHABALALA: I was shocked and disappointed, but I was certain that I would get an explanation about what was happening.

MR RICHARD: Who gave you the explanation?

MR TSHABALALA: It was Pat.

MR RICHARD: What was his explanation, what did he explain to you?

MR TSHABALALA: He explained that he had a problem with Sicelo. He said he knew that he was an informer and he then gave details that Sicelo had been following him, keeping him under surveillance and he also explained that when he was arrested he had certain weapons on him and he had been released on the same day, and also that when he questioned him about these things, he admitted that indeed he was an informer.

MR RICHARD: When you say "weapons", what precisely did Mr Dube say? "He had certain weapons" was what I heard you say, what weapons?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, he did explain the kind of weapons.

MR RICHARD: What sort of weapons did he explain?

MR TSHABALALA: He said it was a Makarov pistol and an F1 handgrenade.

MR RICHARD: And these were with him when? What did Mr Dube say?

MR TSHABALALA: From the explanation that he gave I think it was immediately after his arrest, on the very same year.

MR RICHARD: In other words, his arrest during 1987? - '88?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now during that discussion with Mr Dube, what were you told to do in the future, if anything?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, we were told.

MR RICHARD: What were you told from thereon?

MR TSHABALALA: It was said we should keep this amongst us and not divulge it to anyone else.

MR RICHARD: And were you told what might happen to you if you did divulge it to other people?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: What did you think would happen if you broke silence?

MR TSHABALALA: Obviously I would have been arrested.

MR RICHARD: By whom?

MR TSHABALALA: The people who used to arrest everyone else at the time.

MR RICHARD: If you broke silence and told other ANC members in Emdeni that you just seen Mr Dube execute your best friend, what do you think would have happened to you?

MR TSHABALALA: That did not occur to me.

MR RICHARD: Think back on those times, if you had broken silence as instructed by Mr Dube, by confiding to the ANC structures in defiance of his direction to you, what would have happened to you? Think. You've just seen your best friend shot.

MR TSHABALALA: That would not have happened because at that time the ANC was banned and myself and other people were members of the ANC, and I was not part or I did not take part in communications between ANC leaders.

MR RICHARD: You were a member of Sosco, there were plenty of people that you could have discussed the event with.

MR TSHABALALA: No.

MR RICHARD: Did you believe Mr Dube when he told you why he had executed your friend?

MR TSHABALALA: I accepted the explanation furnished by Mr Dube.

MR RICHARD: Did you believe the explanation? In your heart of hearts, did you think he was telling you the truth?

MR TSHABALALA: I accepted the explanation given by Dube although I did have certain reservations, but I did accept the explanation.

MR RICHARD: Do you still believe and accept his explanations?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do believe it.

MR RICHARD: Now you left the scene and you ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, sorry, just before you move away from this scene.

Can you explain what you mean by these "reservations"? You say although you accepted his explanation you had some reservations, what are you referring to?

MR TSHABALALA: I was entitled to have those reservations because Sicelo was my friend. If something happens to somebody close to you and people tell you that he or she has been doing this and that, you wouldn't want to accept it because you have feelings for that person, that person is close to you.

MR RICHARD: Prior to your discussion after the execution, did you have any suspicions about your friend?

MR TSHABALALA: Do you mean after his death?

MR RICHARD: I mean prior to that discussion where Mr Dube gave you a justification as to why he had just instructed Clive Makhubu to execute your friend. In other words, earlier that month, the month before, did you have any doubts about your friend, Sicelo?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I did have certain reservations.

MR RICHARD: What were they?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was in January 1988 just after the schools had opened, Sicelo had disappeared for some time and he returned. When I enquired about his disappearance he gave me an explanation and I was not satisfied with that explanation, but I requested him to get in contact with the commander because we were worried about his disappearance.

MR RICHARD: What explanation did he give you?

MR TSHABALALA: He said as he had disappeared for all this time he had been away consulting an Inyanga. I think he said this Inyanga was in Meadowlands. He just gave me an explanation about going to that Inyanga. And when I enquired further his final words were that I may not be able to understand everything. At that time I thought that he must be referring to his work at DPSC, but I then urged him to contact the commander.

ADV SANDI: By the commander you are referring to Clive?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, Clive Makhubu.

MR RICHARD: Now were there any further discussions between you and Mr Makhubu?

MR TSHABALALA: When?

MR RICHARD: After your discussion at the time of the execution. Did you make any plans as to what you were going to do next?

MR TSHABALALA: We used to see one another almost daily and we used to discuss things.

MR RICHARD: What did you discuss with him about - what did you plan to do next about the death of your friend, Sicelo?

MR TSHABALALA: We stuck to that agreement that we would not divulge this information to anybody else, it would remain amongst us, the people who had been present.

MR RICHARD: Now on the 28th of January 1988 you went to see the firm of attorneys, Ismail ...(indistinct) and Partners, is that not correct?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Why did you go there?

MR TSHABALALA: As a person who knew the Dhlomo family it came to our attention that the lawyers wanted to see us or get into contact with us as we had been close to Sicelo, because the attorneys were interested in asking us some questions.

MR RICHARD: Now when Mr Makhubu was giving evidence he made a statement to the effect that there was a need to fabricate statements, were you aware of that need?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I was aware.

MR RICHARD: Why were you in need of making fictitious statements?

MR TSHABALALA: Because there was no need to divulge the truth because if we did that our lives would be in danger, moreover we had agreed that we would not discuss the matter with anybody else.

MR RICHARD: But why not then not go to the lawyer at all, just leave it and say nothing?

MR TSHABALALA: Do you mean that we should have just disregarded the request made by the families of Dhlomo and Njele?

MR RICHARD: It was an option, you could have done that if you had so chosen. Clive Makhubu while giving evidence said that while you were moving towards the place of execution you had been seen by somebody, do you remember any such thing? ...(indistinct) company of the deceased.

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: When Mr Makhubu gave evidence there was a statement to the effect that the deceased had been seen in your company by others that afternoon, that evening. What do you comment about Mr Makhubu's statement to that effect?

MR TSHABALALA: I agree with him, he's telling the truth.

MR RICHARD: Now - so then when you look at Exhibit A, which I presume has been shown to you by now, is there anything in it that's true?

MR TSHABALALA: What I can say is, what is contained in the statement is not true.

MR RICHARD: I know that there are untruths in the statement, but my question is are there elements that are true? For instance from the police docket I know it is correct that the deceased was wearing a red T-shirt and a blackish trousers and red shoes and red socks. ...(indistinct) are there any portions of it that are true? - that's the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you're going to take him through it I think we'd better take the adjournment at this stage and you can do so after the adjournment. I propose to take a shorter adjournment than normal. We will adjourn till quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

S G TSHABALALA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I'd just like to clarify something. I'm not sure, Mr Richard if you in fact at some stage this morning amongst all the other things, you said when this television programme was put on.

MR RICHARD: It was broadcast in December 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: It was broadcast in December 1987. Thank you.

ADV SANDI: ... broadcast in South Africa also, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: Not to my knowledge in South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Unlikely it would seem.

MR RICHARD: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (Cont)

Thank you.

What we were dealing with before the adjournment was that in the statement which we know is in some ways fabricated, there are some correct statements. I had referred you to the second paragraph where it reads:

"He, (the deceased, Mr Dhlomo) had on a red T-shirt and a blackish trousers and red shoes and red socks."

Now we know that to be correct from the police docket. Does that tally with your memory?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do remember as to what he had on.

MR RICHARD: Now when Mr Dhlomo wore a T-shirt, did he tuck the shirt into his trousers of did he leave it hanging out, do you remember?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: Now from Mr Dube's evidence we do know that there was a man called Joe who did live in Naledi. Why in this fabricated statement did you use the combination of Joe and Naledi?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember the reasons thereof.

MR RICHARD: Now wouldn't it be dangerous to name an activist who was part of the MK and his suburb, wouldn't that be a breach of security?

MR TSHABALALA: It may be so.

MR RICHARD: Now the next thing. We know from other sources that he was given over R1 000 on the Saturday, and here you say he had with him a diary, a radio cassette and a sum of R830, so is or is not the sum of R830 correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it is so because he is the one who said he had that much money with him.

MR RICHARD: Did you see the money?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I did not see the money, I did not even count it.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he say he had so much money?

MR TSHABALALA: He got to me during the day, it was on Sunday if I'm not mistaken.

MR RICHARD: So you don't know what happened to the money?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I have no idea.

MR RICHARD: Now we do know from the police docket that he had with him a diary, a collection of telephone numbers, business cards. How did you know that he had that?

MR TSHABALALA: As I said, we met during the day on that day, he came to my house. Now I'm assuming those are things that were visible because the writing of that statement as I said, the content is not completely true.

CHAIRPERSON: What time did he come to your house?

MR TSHABALALA: It was during the day. I don't know what time it was.

CHAIRPERSON: And when had you seen him before that day?

MR TSHABALALA: I think I'd seen him a week or two, I don't quite remember.

MR RICHARD: Now when you say he had a radio cassette with him, that we can assume to be one of the truthful parts of this statement.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now when you use the word "cassette", I presume you imply that it was a cassette recorder on which you could play music and record things?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it's some device like that. There will be something that people will have and hang it on the belt on the waist and have the headset as well. It appeared to be something like that, what I just described.

MR RICHARD: But you know what a cassette, walkman, or whatever they call it is. You would know exactly what it is by looking.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Then we also know from Mr Dube that one of the things that Mr Dube hangs his opinion that the deceased was an informer, was that he had a device on his side on his belt. Was it the same thing, could it be the same thing?

MR TSHABALALA: I may not know but what I saw looked and appeared like a radio. I would not know. You see I'm not fully conversant with such devices. I only saw something like a radio.

MR RICHARD: Can you give us a description of this thing? How big was it, what colour was it?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't quite remember the colour, but it was something a little bit tiny, small rather.

MR RICHARD: According to Mr Dube about this size, the size of the ...(indistinct)?

MR TSHABALALA: Well it may be that size.

MR RICHARD: Now did you ever see in either a working order or a broken state, the thing that Mr Dube alleges that he found on the person of the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I'd never seen the one he found.

MR RICHARD: Did he have the tape-recorder when he died?

MR TSHABALALA: I did not search the man, and also I did not take any notice. I only saw him in the state he was when he came to me.

MR RICHARD: Now I then take it that the next paragraph is where you start fabricating

"This meeting at this house was not arranged, it just happened."

That's not true?

MR TSHABALALA: That is not true.

MR RICHARD: And the next paragraph where you say he got ...(indistinct) and the other person who you did not know went to buy food, the cafe was not far from the house. That part is also not true?

MR TSHABALALA: This issue of Naledi is not true.

MR RICHARD: And the remains of that paragraph where you say you got the food is untrue, you've answered that question as would be the next paragraph

"A small walk and then we"

MR TSHABALALA: As I said that issue of Naledi is not true or it's not the truth.

MR RICHARD: Now in Emgeni or somewhere thereabouts, is there a KwaNguni - I'm sorry I can't read it - Mgeni South General Dealer?

MR TSHABALALA: What about?

MR RICHARD: KwaMgeni General Dealer in Mgeni South? Is there such a thing?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes there is a store or a shop called Mgeni.

MR RICHARD: Why did you put that into the statement?

MR TSHABALALA: I'd already said that what was in that statement was fabricated so it will create some picture.

MR RICHARD: When we come to the issue of proportionality we have a scenario where a man, your friend the deceased, had been a member of the cell for a very short period of time and we know from other evidence that the deceased had not taken part in any operations with the cell and in fact had been out of contact with the cell for a considerable period. In those circumstances, do you think that an execution was the only appropriate manner of dealing with the situation?

MR TSHABALALA: This was such a long question, I lost you somewhere.

MR RICHARD: Did you agree with those circumstantial factors that are outlined which went, the deceased had been a member of the cell for a very short period of time, then he's out of contact with the cell, that's the next factor. The next factor is he never took part in any operations with the cell, never was party to planning any operations with the cell. Do you agree with those factors and those statements?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And in fact other than knowing you, his good friend, the other cell members, he really didn't know very much at all? Yes or no?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR RICHARD: In those circumstances, if he had been an informer, what he could have told the police was very little more than the names of the cell members?

MR TSHABALALA: I have no idea.

MR RICHARD: Now in those circumstances, my next question is do you think that it was appropriate to execute him?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: I've outlined various factors surrounding the situation as it was perceived in January 1988. My next question is, in those circumstances if he had been an informer as Mr Dube seemed to believe, was the only manner that the situation could be dealt with, the execution?

MR TSHABALALA: I think that necessitated a need or some explanation to be granted or to be given to the members of the cell.

MR RICHARD: Right, on the Saturday, I believe that would be the 23rd January 1988, were you at a meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember but a good part of my life was to attend meetings.

MR RICHARD: Now were you with the deceased at a meeting that Saturday?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: No I confirm there are no further questions with my client Mr Chairperson.

There is a version that I will put to you that you were with the deceased that Saturday at a meeting, yes or no?

MR TSHABALALA: I said no, I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: I have just a few points I would like to clear up with you please? You saw the deceased on the Sunday morning sometime as he came to your home, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I said during the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sorry. It may have been in the afternoon. Had he told you he had the money, did he tell you what it was for?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes I think he said, if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: For Baragwanath, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: Please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: The money was for people at Baragwanath Hospital?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes he had said that money was for the detainees.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you told us you met him about two weeks before then?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes that was a rough estimation, I think it could have been that much or less.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long before that had you met him?

MR TSHABALALA: Quite a long time although I don't quite remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Well an estimate.

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was more than a week, I'm not sure if a month or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Between a week and a month you say?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes around there, between two weeks or a month or two months but it was a lengthy period.

CHAIRPERSON: Well on that, you met him on the 20th January, you met him two weeks before, that's on about the 6th January, if you met him a month before it's the 6th December or sometime in November. Is that all correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: And the relationship between you was all quite normal?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes it was quite normal.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you get this disk? Was that the disk of the television programme he appeared in?

MR TSHABALALA: It was a video cassette.

CHAIRPERSON: It was a video cassette?

MR TSHABALALA: I don't remember as to when I got that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it of the show he was in?

MR TSHABALALA: I think it was something like a documentary, I'm not sure if I'm using those words correctly. It was a video cassette relating to him the way he was harassed and tortured in prison and other things.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give it to you?

MR TSHABALALA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, where did you get it?

MR TSHABALALA: If I'm not mistaken I think I got it after his death. I'm not sure, however it was sent to me by one of the people he went to school with, sending it from abroad.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED