CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Honnorat, who is the next applicant?
MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, the next applicant is will be number 3 on the list, Themba Patrick Zondo.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Zondo, do you hear the interpretation on your headset?
PATRICK THEMBA ZONDO: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Honnorat, is it you?
MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I will lead Mr Zondo in a slightly different way, by reading through his affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: And there will be elucidatory questions asked by myself whilst leading him on the affidavit. And the Chairman and the Honourable Panel are advised to turn to page 31(b) of the bundle. We'll start with paragraph number 5, because that is actually relevant to these proceedings, to this hearing.
Mr Zondo, it's written in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of your application for amnesty that -
"My imprisonment flows from the murder of Jacob Manoto, which in my view was a political one, taking into account the political situation at the time.
Naturally, Jacob Manoto was hated in the Diepkloof township as he was generally perceived to be an informer of the SAP of the former government.
Although no tangible evidence was at hand at the time, but he was believed to be spying on the comrades. In fact, the deceased was not on talking terms with me since I was a member of the ANC Youth League."
Now on the question of the deceased not being on talking terms with you, were you living in the neighbourhood of the deceased at the time of the incident, which took place in April 1993?
MR ZONDO: I was living next to the deceased's home.
MR HONNORAT: Yes. You refer to Mr Manoto being generally perceived to be an informer of the SAP of the former government. Now at the time that the incident took place, leading to the eventual killing of Mr Manoto, were you persuaded of the fact that he was a political informer of the previous regime?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I believed in that.
MR HONNORAT: Now what was your relation to any political organisation or liberation movement involved in the struggle against that regime at the time?
MR ZONDO: I was a supporter of the ANC.
MR HONNORAT: As a supporter of the ANC, how you personally perceived police informers, as Mr Manoto was alleged to have been?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did perceive him as an informer of the SAP.
MR HONNORAT: Yes, and as a police informer, as an informer of the SAP, how you generally felt towards him, as a supporter of the ANC at the time?
MR ZONDO: I did not like him.
MR HONNORAT: What is the reason why you didn't like police informers of the previous regime, as a supporter of the ANC in those days?
MR ZONDO: At that time an informer was not wanted in the community, he was someone who would be attacked and killed.
MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said in paragraph 6
"Due to the volatile political situation in the area at the time, quarrels and animosity led to the death threats which caused the deceased to fear for his and his family's safety.
As I live in his neighbourhood he fortified his house with high walls, razor wire, burglar bars, spiked steel fencing and a locked front gate."
Now in your personal opinion and also considering the fact that you were an immediate neighbour of the deceased, would you refer his surrounding himself with all these protective devices, to other than fear related to political reason? For instance, jealousy of the neighbours, fear of burglaries and other things.
MR ZONDO: He did not do this for reasons that you have cited, such as jealousy, but he knew that as a person who collaborated with the police anything could happen to him at any time.
MR HONNORAT: Then you said in paragraph 7
"One morning, probably on Sunday the 18th of April 1993, a particularly virulent quarrel took place between the deceased and accused number 2, Sipho Tshabalala (who will testify later at this hearing), being another neighbour.
The deceased then reported the incident to the police, who in response raided the home of accused number 2, the following morning and whilst he was at work. The brother of accused number 2 was beaten up by the police in the process."
Now how did you come to know about this particular incident?
MR ZONDO: That was something that was discussed in the community and I learnt about it when I returned from work, that Mr Manoto had sent police to Mr Tshabalala's home in regards to alleged firearms that were supposedly at Mr Tshabalala's home.
MR HONNORAT: Who informed you about that?
MR ZONDO: As a person who would normally be away from work I would get such information when I return from work from the residents of the township and they did inform me that this had taken place at Tshabalala's place. Even my mother informed me when I arrived at home that Bonagile, that is Mr Manoto, had actually sent the police to Sipho's home.
MR HONNORAT: Did you go and find out at Sipho's home what happened there?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did.
MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said on paragraph 8
"On the evening of the 9th of April 1993, accused 2, that is Sipho Victor Tshabalala's family, reported the matter to the Crime Committee of the ANC Youth League.
I was not a member of this committee and I was not present at this meeting, when the deceased was condemned to death as an informer. However, as I arrived home late that evening from work, I was apprised of the proceedings.
In fear of the eventual execution of the deceased, I managed to convincingly initiate another meeting to involve the elders of the community, who might be influential in discouraging any acts of killing the deceased."
Why did you feel at the particular time that perhaps there were better ways of dealing with the deceased than killing him?
MR ZONDO: In the struggle we normally did not take just take hasty decisions without informing the relevant people of the matter and discussing it with them. As a community in the township there were various committees, Street Committees, Crime Committees and there would also be ANC and the Youth League of the ANC.
As it had been discussed that Mr Manoto was an informer and some people had reported to that effect, I suggested that the Street Committee and the Civic Association and the elders in the community be informed and the matter be discussed with them. That was on the 19th, and that meeting was supposed to take place on the 21st.
MR HONNORAT: Yes, then you said in paragraph 9 that
"Another meeting was held at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon on the 21st of April 1993, at a local Lutheran Church."
Can you inform this Honourable Panel what was your contribution towards that meeting, that taking place of that meeting.
MR ZONDO: On that meeting it was meant to inform members of the community, the Civic Organisation and the Street Committee, as to Mr Manoto's situation, that he was an informer. At that point everyone knew that an informer was not wanted in the township, he was supposed to be killed because he contributed to the harassment of the community and also he would disturb the movements of the people involved in the struggle.
MR HONNORAT: Did you actively contribute towards convening people towards the meeting at the Lutheran Church, on the 21st of April?
MR ZONDO: Yes.
MR HONNORAT: On doing that, was there any particular weight attached to you to the importance of discussing the question of a police informer being present right in your neighbourhood? On convening this meeting, in helping convening the meeting.
INTERPRETER: Please repeat that question.
MR HONNORAT: When ...(indistinct) convened the meeting on the 21st of April, was there weight attached to you to the issue I mean of a police informer being allegedly present in the midst of your neighbourhood?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did regard it as important to discuss that.
MR HONNORAT: Now when the meeting was convened on the 21st of April 1993 at the local Lutheran Church, were you of the firm conviction that the deceased was indeed a police informer?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I was convinced of that.
MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you say that
"The church that evening was packed with hundreds of people and a heated debate took place concerning what was to be done about the Manoto family, more particularly the deceased.
The elders of the community adopted a cautious approach, while the youth were thirsting for a fight. I actively participated in the said meeting, with a view to have this matter referred to the Civic Association in order that the fate of the Manoto family be decided at the highest level of affiliation."
My question is, if the fate was decided in terms of the killing of the deceased at the highest level of affiliation, would they have been satisfied with the decision?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I would have been satisfied.
MR HONNORAT: So is it correct then to say that you main preoccupation was that whatever decision was determined, it should be determined by people at a higher level, including the elders? Whether it was killing or any other form of measure adopted against the deceased. Is it correct, I mean, on the basis of your previous answer, that was your position?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat that, I do not understand.
MR HONNORAT: Is it correct then I mean to say on the basis of your previous answer, that your main preoccupation was that whatever decision was taken concerning the deceased and his family, including the killing of the deceased, you main preoccupation was that it should be endorsed by people at a higher level, with the participation of the elders even if that included the killing, actually involve the killing of the deceased.
MR ZONDO: That is correct.
MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you say
"The meetings was chaotic ...(indistinct) and eventually disrupted by Anna Gumede, who criticised the conciliatory approach adopted by the elders in their ignorance to what she termed the struggle.
She then called on the youth, more particularly the ANC Youth League, to proceed to Manoto's house to deal with him accordingly. Accordingly the youth rushed out of the church and made for the house of Manoto like a swarm of angry bees. In no time Manoto's house was surrounded by an angry mob."
Now on a personal level, would you say that the decision was taken eventually at the meeting, at the end of the meeting, that the deceased should be killed, as a police informer?
MR ZONDO: As it's already been mentioned that Anna Gumede said the person should be dealt with effectively. At that point the discussions were still going on between the Street Committees, Civic Associations and people who were in the hall. And at that time there was a heated dispute and the meeting was becoming uncontrollable and she uttered the words that he should be killed, and that was the feeling of the people who were in the hall as well.
MR HONNORAT: So it was your personal opinion that the meeting ended with the decision of the people who went out to kill the deceased? That was the practical decision I mean, taken at the end of the meeting.
MR ZONDO: Yes.
MR HONNORAT: Personally, had you any objection to the decision?
MR ZONDO: No.
MR HONNORAT: Can you motivate the reason why you were satisfied with the decision?
MR ZONDO: As explained before, as a community in that township a person who was an informer was very dangerous to the community at large as well as to the organisations that operated in the township.
MR HONNORAT: Yes. Did you personally perceive that since a decision at a higher level of affiliation or with the involvement of the elders, was no longer possible with the uncontrollable mob? Did you personally perceive that I mean, it was okay I mean, for them I mean, to carry out what they were intended doing, even I mean, without the approval of the elders or a direct involvement of them or people at a higher level of affiliation?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I saw it as appropriate to proceed.
MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said
"Then I came to realise that there was nothing more on my part to do to dissuade the uncontrollable and rowdy mob from engaging in the act they were about to commit."
Personally, did you feel that once the decision was taken by this mob, that you personally wished to dissuade them from carrying out the action and you felt that at every cost the elders must be involved or a higher level of affiliation must decide the matter without them doing so?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat the question.
MR HONNORAT: Yes. That at the time that the uncontrollable mob went away, did you personally feel that you needed or that you would have liked to dissuade them from carrying out their actions and you personally felt that you should try or you would have liked to try them not to carry out without the elders or a higher level of affiliation approving the act of killing?
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Honnorat, perhaps one would have to try and find a more neutral way of asking the question.
What was your feeling - let us put the question this way, what was your feeling at the time this mob went of the hall, moving towards the house of Mr Manoto? How did you feel about what was happening at that point in time?
MR ZONDO: As a person who also did not approve of the informers I felt that what they were doing was appropriate.
MR HONNORAT: Then you said
"In frustration I proceeded straight to my fiancé’s home, Debbie, where I stayed for over an hour before going to my home."
Did you pass by the deceased's house seeing the group gathered at the deceased's house on your way I mean, to your fiancé’s home?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did pass that way. I also wanted to be part of that group, but for several reasons, such as you could be arrested if you had been seen in such a situation, that was the reason why I decided I should just go to Debbie's home because after all I was a neighbour to Mr Manoto.
ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, the word "in frustration I proceeded", what frustrated you?
MR ZONDO: I was not sure whether to proceed and take part in the attack or just leave. I'm not sure that I'm responding to your question.
ADV BOSMAN: I wanted to know why you felt frustrated. Do you know what the word "frustrated" means?
MR ZONDO: Please explain it to me.
ADV BOSMAN: Don't you know what the word means?
MR ZONDO: I may have a different interpretation because as far as I know "frustration" stems from wanting to do something but you are, for one reason or the other prevented from doing it.
ADV BOSMAN: That's is my understanding too. So what frustrated you?
MR ZONDO: It is for the reason that I wanted to be part of the group that attacked the house, but for fear that I would be easily recognised as one of the people who attacked, because I was a neighbour, therefore I would be arrested easily. That is why I had to dissociate myself and leave.
MR HONNORAT: Then you say
"The reason for my taking a different route from that of the crowd gathered in the church, I did not want to be identified with the group in question or be associated with their actions in any manner whatsoever."
Now I think you have basically explained the reason why. Is the reason the one mentioned to you, that you could have easily been identified known as a neighbour and you might land in trouble?
MR ZONDO: That is correct.
MR HONNORAT: You say
"Indeed I did not see how the crowd gained access to the fortified home of the deceased and how the deceased was murdered and his family assaulted. However, on my way home I noticed the wife and the children of the deceased lying helplessly about 20m from the home and the deceased lying just outside his yard. The crowd had dispersed at that time."
Now when, I mean, you saw the crowd assembling by the house of the deceased, did you know as a matter of certainty, or foresaw as a most likely possibility that indeed the attack would result in the deceased's death as a police informer?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did. I did realise that as they were on their way to attack his home, he was going to be killed.
MR HONNORAT: Now you have said that you live opposite to the, just next I mean, to the deceased's house, was it possible for you I mean, to go I mean, to the house and call for help on behalf of the deceased, if you wanted to do so?
MR ZONDO: If I had that desire to help him I could have because we had a telephone at home, but I did not want to help him because of his activities as an informer.
MR HONNORAT: So are you telling this Honourable Panel that you purposely omitted to lend assistance to the deceased, your actual neighbour, although it was very easy for you to do so?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did so intentionally.
ADV BOSMAN: What would have happened if you did call for help for the deceased?
MR ZONDO: I would have become, or I would have been associated with him as an informer.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Honnorat.
MR HONNORAT: Do you believe that if you had called from your house for the police to intervene, the chance was there that they could have saved the deceased's life?
MR ZONDO: Yes, they could have spared his life had I done so.
MR HONNORAT: Now paragraph 12 deals basically with you have heard about how the murder was effected whilst you were listening to the co-proceedings. Now in paragraph 13 you said
"I state further that prior to the trial of this matter I was informed that Mrs Manoto had identified me as one of the persons present at the time of the attack because she felt betrayed by neighbours for failure to come to the rescue of her family during the attack."
Do you admit that it was easy for you to come to the rescue of her family during the attack, if you had willing to do so?
MR ZONDO: Will you please repeat that question.
MR HONNORAT: Do you confirm the fact that it was indeed easy for you to come to the rescue of the Manoto family, the widow's family during the attack, if you had been willing to do so? - to come to their rescue.
MR ZONDO: Yes, it would have been easy if I was willing to do so.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Zondo, I don't understand. You said if you did so you would have been killed. Could it have been easy then for you to do so?
MR HONNORAT: It is my - I object to the question on the ...(intervention)
MR ZONDO: Maybe we did not understand each other well.
MR HONNORAT: I object to the question on the factual basis that he just said that he would have been associated as an informer. He didn't say that he would have been killed, I mean, necessarily, I mean if he had done so.
ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct) in the context of all the evidence that would have been the result, Mr - your name's just slipped my mind for a moment.
MR ZULU: Mr Honnorat.
ADV BOSMAN: ... Mr Honnorat. I will pose the question differently.
If you were seen as an informer, what would have happened to you, Mr Zondo?
MR ZONDO: As I explained before, such a person was not wanted, therefore the same fate would have happened to me as it did happen to Mr Manoto.
ADV BOSMAN: So would it have been easy for you to call for help for Mr Manoto?
MR ZONDO: It would have been easy for me to do so, but because of the fear that should I do so, I may be associated with him. I decided not to call for help.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. You may proceed.
ADV SANDI: I'm trying to understand this.
But is it not - the reason that you did not pick up your phone at home for example, and contact the police and tell them about what was about to happen, that's not the reason as I understand your evidence, that's not the reason why you did not contact the police, it's because you agreed with what the mob was about to do. You said you felt that what they're going to do to Mr Manoto was appropriate.
MR ZONDO: I did state so. When I was questioned on whether I could have assisted him if I was willing, I responded to the effect that I could have if I had been willing to do so, but because I did not want to associate myself with his activities I did not do so.
ADV SANDI: Yes, it was not a question of you being afraid of the consequences of contacting the police and telling that Mr Manoto is about to be killed, it was just a matter of you not wanting to do it at all, you agreed with what the mob was going to do.
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did associate myself with the mob.
CHAIRPERSON: But would it have been possible for you to use your telephone, the facility that you had at home, to phone the police without the comrades knowing that you actually made the telephone call?
MR ZONDO: I would have been able to do so, but because I did not want to do that, I didn't.
CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, if you had wanted to make an anonymous call to the police for example, or a call to the police under circumstances where it would not become known that you actually called them, it would have been easy for you to have done that?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I could have done that but I didn't want to do it. As I've explained before, that was something that would have associated me with the informer. It is something I did not want to do. I felt that the action that was to be taken against Mr Manoto was appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Honnorat.
MR HONNORAT: So you said you associated yourself with the action of the mob, even from a distance and by omitting to come to the rescue of the Manoto family. In doing so, were you inspired by ill feelings, personal feelings of grudge and ...(indistinct) towards the deceased and his family?
MR ZONDO: No, I had no personal grudge against them. The only thing that I hated was that Mr Manoto was a police informer.
MR HONNORAT: Were you inspired by the prospect of any financial gain?
MR ZONDO: No, we were not promised any financial gain.
MR HONNORAT: Now would you like at this stage to offer your apology and seek forgiveness from the family of the deceased for your participation in convening the meeting, which eventually resulted in the decision to kill the deceased and your omission to come to the rescue of the deceased and his family at a time and circumstances which allowed to do so quite easily? Would you like I mean, to do that and use this opportunity for that?
MR ZONDO: I am remorseful for what happened to Mr Manoto now, but at the time I regarded it as appropriate. But in retrospect I do realise that the loss of their father, the head of the family, was very bad for them and I would request them to forgive me for my part.
MR HONNORAT: At the time of the incident, when you convened the meeting, helped convene the meeting on the 21st, when you omitted to give support, assistance, to the family of the deceased, did you in good faith believe that such an action and such omission were done in furtherance of a political objective to strengthen the course of the struggle at the time in the townships?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I did believe so.
MR HONNORAT: Now have you made a full and frank disclosure of all your participation, both in a positive sense of acting, in a negative sense of omitting from acting concerning the incident which led to the killing of the deceased on the relevant date, to the house today? Have you made I mean, such a full and frank disclosure?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat that.
MR HONNORAT: Have you made a full and frank disclosure of all your participation positively, by way of action and negatively, by way of omitting from acting on the date of the incident which resulted in the killing of the deceased, to I mean this house?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I have disclosed everything.
MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, questions?
MS VILAKAZI: I would just ask one question, Chairperson, based on the judgment in the trial, on page 100. I would ask the legal representative to show it to the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which line is it?
MS VILAKAZI: The very last paragraph.
CHAIRPERSON: The last paragraph, yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mrs Manoto said that accused 5 was one of the persons who had descended from the roof into the dining-room, hauled her out and handed her over to accused number 6.
Does this accused number 5 refer to you? Were you accused number 5 at the trial?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I was.
MS VILAKAZI: Now what is your comment about the finding of the judge in that respect? The fact that Mrs Manoto said you were there and you took her out of the house and handed her over to number 6?
MR ZONDO: I dispute that.
MS VILAKAZI: I would have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VILAKAZI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Zondo, did you know Ms Gumede before the incident on the 21st of April 1993?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I grew up in the area, she was older than me.
MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, you've just testified that you heard the information that a meeting was held on the 19th of April 1993, when the deceased was condemned to death as an informer, is that correct?
MR ZONDO: There are two dates, the 19th and the 21st.
MR MASAGELA: I'm referring to the meeting of the 19th.
MR ZONDO: Please repeat that question.
MR MASAGELA: You've just said that you got information that in the meeting of the 19th of April 1993, the information was that - I mean in that meeting it was resolved that the deceased was condemned to death as an informer.
MR ZONDO: Yes, the decision had been taken, but because of certain procedures in the struggle, that the youth cannot take all the decisions, there were Street Committees, there were Civic Associations and those were the people who had to be contacted and a meeting be held with them as to what to do, how to proceed.
MR MASAGELA: And you have also testified that it is only, I mean the decision as to whether the informer should be killed, that is Mr Manoto, should be killed, can only be taken by people at a higher level. Is that correct?
MR ZONDO: It should have been taken at a higher level.
MR MASAGELA: And you've also said further that - actually you said in your way that everybody in that meeting was of the opinion that Mr Manoto should be killed.
MR ZONDO: That is correct.
MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, does Mrs Gumede have the authority to tell the people in that meeting that Mr Manoto should be killed?
MR ZONDO: I would not say that she had the authority, because everyone, a lot of people contributed in the meeting, everyone expressed their opinion as to what steps should be taken against the informer. So I cannot say that Ms Anna Gumede had to take that decision as to what should be done to him.
MR MASAGELA: So as far as you're concerned, the decision as to whether Mr Manoto should be killed can only be taken by people in the higher authority?
MR ZONDO: It could have been taken by the people who were attending the meeting.
MR MASAGELA: And Mr Zondo, you just said that Ms Gumede criticised the conciliatory approach adopted by the elders, can you just clarify as to what you mean.
MR ZONDO: I mean to say that she regarded their approach as too cautious, she had an opinion that Mr Manoto should just be killed.
MR MASAGELA: Ms Gumede what did she say? In her exact words, can you just tell us, what did she say in that meeting?
MR ZONDO: If I remember correctly she said some of the elder people in the meeting did not know anything about the struggle.
MR MASAGELA: When you proceeded to Mr Manoto's house, that's from the church building there, did you got there on instruction - did you go there after you'd been instructed by anyone, or you just - people just decided to go there? Did anyone instruct the people, the mob there, to go to Mr Manoto's house?
MR ZONDO: After the opinion expressed by Ms Anna, it became easy for everyone else to proceed there because everyone had that opinion, they associated themselves with the opinion that he should be killed. So when she uttered those words, it made it easy for the people to proceed to that house and kill him.
MR MASAGELA: And you have also testified that you personally, you didn't have any problem proceeding to Mr Manoto's house, is that correct?
MR ZONDO: That is correct.
MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, my instructions are that Ms Gumede was present in that meeting, she said after she realised that there was no understanding between the youth and the elderly people in the church, she stood up and said "I am now leaving because you cannot resolve this problem". And then she also said "I'm going to work tomorrow and then we will see what to do with this matter", and then she left the building. Do you have any comment on that?
MR ZONDO: I dispute that.
MR MASAGELA: My instructions are also that Ms Gumede will deny having said that the youth should proceed to Mr Manoto's house and to deal with him accordingly.
MR ZONDO: We have come before this Committee to tell the truth, I would not come here and lie about someone because then I would be lying to the Committee.
MR MASAGELA: Last question, Mr Zondo. Would you agree with me that even if Ms Gumede didn't say anything in that meeting, people were just going to proceed to Mr Manoto's house anyway?
MR ZONDO: Yes, I would agree with you.
MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MASAGELA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Masagela. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do, thank you.
Mr Zondo, on page 33 of the bundle, paragraph 11 from line 4, at the end you stated -
"The reason for my taking a different route from that of the crowd gathered in the church is that I did not want to be identified with the group in question or be associated with their actions in any manner whatsoever."
Would you agree with this statement?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat that.
MS THABETHE: Can you also read with me on paragraph 11 of your statement. Right.
"The reason for my taking a different route from that of the crowd gathered in the church is that I did not want to be identified with the group in question or be associated with their actions in any manner whatsoever."
Is that a correct reflection of what I've read, of your opinion?
MR ZONDO: Yes. As I've already mentioned, I did not want to be seen with them because I was a neighbour. That would have prompted that I be arrested easily. That was the reason why I thought I should take a different route.
MS THABETHE: So you did not take part in the murder, is that correct? Or the assault of the family, correct?
MR ZONDO: That's correct.
MS THABETHE: Also, you were not at the scene when Mr Manoto was murdered or when the family was assaulted, is that correct?
MR ZONDO: That is correct.
MS THABETHE: And also, you clearly dissociate yourself with the action that took place at that scene, as you've put it in paragraph 11, is that correct?
MR ZONDO: I was with them in spirit because I felt that what they were doing was appropriate ...(intervention)
MS THABETHE: Sorry, can I cut you just there. What I'm trying to understand is the action that you are applying for amnesty for, you say you were there at the meeting, so you're associating yourself with the decision that was taken in the meeting. Or to put it in another way, with conspiring to kill Mr Manoto, in the meeting, isn't that so?
MR ZONDO: That's correct.
MS THABETHE: Right. But you are not associating yourself with the murder of Mr Manoto and the assault of his family?
CHAIRPERSON: Now you see, Ms Thabethe, that's where you make the mistake, you used the term "dissociate" when you were summarising the sentence that you read out to the applicant. He's not saying he dissociated himself ...(intervention)
MS THABETHE: He says he did not ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ... he says he did not associate himself. Let's just get this
"I didn't want to be identified with the group of be associated ..."
... or be associated.
MS THABETHE: Isn't that dissociating?
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, he says he didn't want to be associated, in other words he didn't want to be identified. And that's what he was trying to explain to you. He was there in spirit, but he wasn't there in presence, in physical presence, simply because he would have exposed himself to arrest, to easy identification and arrest because he was a well known person there, he was the next-door neighbour. So that's why he didn't want to be physically seen to be with this group, but in spirit he was. In other words, his intention was similar.
MS THABETHE: So he would still be liable for murder because in spirit he was there ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what he says. He said he associated himself with the actions.
MS THABETHE: Okay. Then it means I did not understand that. In that case I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?
ADV SANDI: Yes, just one.
Mr Zondo, I get the impression - when I read paragraph 11, the impression I have is that initially you did not want this mob or this crowd of people to take an action against Mr Manoto. Is that impression correct?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat.
ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that initially whilst you were at the Lutheran Church Hall, you did not want this group to take any action against Mr Manoto? Is that impression correct?
MR ZONDO: Please repeat.
ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that initially whilst you were at the Lutheran Church Hall, you did not want this group to take any action against Mr Manoto? Would that be correct?
MR ZONDO: I did want them to go and attack Mr Manoto.
ADV SANDI: Ja, you see the reason why I'm asking the question is, the first line on paragraph 11 says
"I then came to realise that there was nothing more on my part to do to dissuade the uncontrollable and rowdy mob from engaging in any act that they were about to commit."
Then you go on to say -
"In frustration I proceed straight to my fiancé’s home."
MR ZONDO: That is true, the decision had already become obviously, that everyone was intent on going out to kill the deceased.
ADV SANDI: But I thought it was part of your evidence-in-chief that you would have preferred a situation where this matter was dealt with by elderly members of the community and that was the reason why you were trying to control this crowd, you were trying to talk to these people.
MR ZONDO: That is also true. The decision should have come from the Civic Association and the elders, but because of the chaotic nature of the meeting, it then became impossible to do so, but the decision came out of the meeting and I associated myself with that decision.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but the manner the decision was taken at the end of these discussions, was not the normal way in which discussion on such - it was not the normal way in which decisions on such matters are taken, didn't you say that? Usually elderly members of the community and responsible leaders of the organisation would be involved in the taking of such decisions, especially if a person is to be killed.
MR ZONDO: That is true, but as I've explained the ANC Youth League, the Street Committee, the Civic Association and other members of the community were present and the house, the forum itself, had decided that and it was beyond the control of the other people or the other leaders who were present.
ADV SANDI: But one would also ask why were you so quick to go along with the emotions of this mob, this uncontrollable rowdy mob, as you've put it in your statement? Why would you be so quick to go along with them and agree with them?
MR ZONDO: Because I also believe that an informer should be killed.
ADV SANDI: You say you did not do anything to prevent the group from taking action against Mr Manoto, because of his activities, what were his activities? What activities are you referring to there?
MR ZONDO: In most instances we knew that he was an informer. For example, the case where he sent police to Mr Tshabalala, that confirmed the suspicions that he was an informer. That event of sending police to the Tshabalala home confirmed the suspicions that we held already, that he was an informer.
ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that no action whatsoever was taken by you in support of the group? You had no contribution whatsoever in the events that led to the killing of Mr Manoto?
MR ZONDO: Please clarify that question. Do you mean the physical assault on the family or what are you referring to?
ADV SANDI: What act was carried out by you in support of your feeling that Mr Manoto should be killed if he is an informer? You didn't do anything positive, did you?
MR ZONDO: I would say it would have been easy for me to assist him by use of the telephone, but because I associated myself with the people who attacked him, I did not do so.
ADV SANDI: What I mean is you were not part of that group, you didn't go there.
MR ZONDO: As I've explained earlier, the reason that I did not involve myself was that I would have been easily identified because I was a neighbour and expose myself to arrest.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Honnorat?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Just one question, Mr Chairperson.
After the event, after the killing of the deceased, did you hear from any comrades you met at your level or at a higher level of affiliation, words or actions of disapproval, censuring, criticism of the act which was committed on that night of the 21st of April?
MR ZONDO: No.
MR HONNORAT: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HONNORAT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Yes, Mr Zondo, you are excused, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
