Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibeko?

MR SIBEKO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr Themba Khumalo. Mr Chairman, I cannot see the name Themba here but there is Thedima Naphtazi Khumalo, which I think could be one and the same person. If I have to find out from ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which page is it?

MR SIBEKO: It's page 126.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR SIBEKO: 126B, Lusaka-B.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ascertained whether it is the same matter?

MR SIBEKO: It is one and the same person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khumalo, can you hear?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I can hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please stand and give us your full names?

THEMBA NAPHTAL KHUMALO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, now you can sit down. Mr Sibeko?

EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khumalo, you are also an applicant applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR SIBEKO: Were you also a member of the Self Defence Unit, Lusaka-B section, Thokoza?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR SIBEKO: When did you join the unit, Sir?

MR KHUMALO: In 1993.

MR SIBEKO: Who was our commander?

MR KHUMALO: It Makasonke.

MR SIBEKO: Were you involved in incidents of violence that occurred at or about the year 1993, at your section?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR SIBEKO: Do you mind telling us about those incidents?

MR KHUMALO: I used to assist Makasonke by contributing R2,00 and food, that is all.

ADV GCABASHE: Is that contributing or collecting from the community or did you contribute it personally?

MR KHUMALO: I used to collect money in preparation for purchasing food and we would also assist people who had fled their houses and we would bring people along to look over the houses and make sure that nothing is damaged.

MR SIBEKO: Will I be correct if I say that like in Mr Aaron Ngwenya's case, you were also involved in providing shelter in the houses that were left by people who belonged to the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR SIBEKO: Were you involved - let me put it like this, did you at any stage during this violence carry a weapon, be it a Scorpion or an AK47, shoot anybody?

MR KHUMALO: No, I was just involved in the collection of money to buy food for the community and taking care of the houses.

MR SIBEKO: Will I be correct, that unlike in Mr Aaron Ngwenya's case, you never kept any arms or ammunition at your place?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I did not keep any firearms.

MR SIBEKO: Will I further be correct if I say that your application is specifically for taking control or taking charge of people's houses and providing same to other people, whereas you didn't possess any authority to do that?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat the question?

MR SIBEKO: Will I be correct to say that your application is specifically for taking charge or control of the houses which were left by the members of the IFP, if I may put it like that?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR SIBEKO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SIBEKO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibeko. Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No, questions, thank you, Sir.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Panel?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.

The allocation of houses, you were not involved in dispossessing IFP members of their houses, you only allocated houses that were empty anyway, is that right?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct. We were just taking care of the houses to make sure that they were not damaged.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you ever put any of the operative SDU units into the houses? I will just use a quick example. For instance the houses at Khumalo Street, so that you could shoot into the hostels across the road. That is just as an example, but were you ever involved in giving SDU units that were on an operation housing?

MR KHUMALO: No, we were not operating in that section, we operated in the ANC section where IFP members had fled during the fighting. We would allocate people to these houses to take care of them.

ADV GCABASHE: Were you at any stage when you were with Makasonke Mhlope, involved in the discussions around where patrols should take place, what should be done by SDU members when they are confronted by opponents and so forth?

MR KHUMALO: We used to deal with houses specifically.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Mr Khumalo. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

But you were a member of the Self Defence Unit, is that right?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So the Self Defence Unit that you were a member of, was it involved in fights with the opposition in the area, people with red headbands thought to have been members of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they were involved in such fightings.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were using firearms, AK47 rifles in those fights, to your knowledge?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they were using these firearms, fighting was going on.

CHAIRPERSON: You agreed with the actions taken by the Self Defence Unit?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, for the one reason that the IFP was attacking ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were aware that in these fights your fellow members of the SDU could and possibly did injure and kill people from the opposition, in these fights?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that your fellow members of the Self Defence Unit in these fights with the opposition, could possibly use the firearms to kill and injure people?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, they were using firearms. It was a fighting situation, the IFP were also using firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: And if I understood you correctly, you supported this?

MR KHUMALO: I would say yes, I supported this because they were defending us.

CHAIRPERSON: Now just in regard to the houses, do you know how it came about that these houses were abandoned by the occupiers?

MR KHUMALO: They abandoned these houses because they were scared of dying. Some of them were members of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Well those houses which were allocated by yourself, can we accept that they belonged to members or supporters of the IFP?

MR KHUMALO: They did not take these houses from IFP members, these houses were abandoned by members of the IFP. Some of them are back at those houses now.

CHAIRPERSON: But these occupiers abandoned the houses because of the fighting that was going on between their group and your group, not so?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So one can assume that those occupiers of these houses were ...(end of tape) ... conflict?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the people that you put in the houses were supporters of your side of the conflict?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct. What we were concerned about was to ensure that the houses are not damaged, that is why we had to allocate people in some of these houses.

CHAIRPERSON: But could you not do that simply by keeping an eye on the houses?

MR KHUMALO: We would not have done that because people would have had access and damaged the properties inside the houses.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you support the idea that the IFP supporters ought, at that stage now, ought to have left the area?

MR KHUMALO: They just left their houses out of their own free will, they were not forced out by the community. They knew they were members of the IFP and they then left voluntarily.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is, were you happy with the fact that they had left that area? It doesn't matter how it came about, but just the mere fact that they had now left.

MR KHUMALO: We were not happy because it was a war situation, we were not happy about anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you correctly, were you putting people inside the houses and were you erecting structures on the premises as well, for people to occupy?

MR KHUMALO: I did indicate earlier on that we allocated people into the houses that were vacated by IFP members and we also built some shacks in the backyards to accommodate other people.

CHAIRPERSON: So would it be correct to say that you had put more people into that area than the people who had left?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the intention, was this a temporary measure or was this a permanent measure or what?

MR KHUMALO: It was a tentative measure because we knew that there is a possibility that the owners of the houses might come back.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what would have happened, what would your attitude have been if the members of the, if the occupiers of those houses had returned, say shortly after having left, whilst the people that you had allocated these houses were still in occupation there? What would your attitude have been?

MR KHUMALO: Some of the owners of the houses are coming back, there is nothing that we are doing. If anybody comes back, that's it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand that, that's a good thing but I'm talking about that stage, at that stage were you concerned to make sure that that particular area had as many people who supported your fight as possible and if any of the IFP supporters would have tried to return at that stage, say a day or two after having left, would you have resisted that?

MR KHUMALO: As I have explained, if anybody came back we would remove the ones we had allocated into the house.

CHAIRPERSON: And you'd break down the outbuildings and the structures that you had erected there?

MR KHUMALO: That would depend on whether the person is occupying the shack has alternative accommodation or not, that depended on time.

CHAIRPERSON: The only reason why I'm asking you is because if it was simply just to keep an eye on these houses and ensure that they are not damaged, it is a bit difficult to understand why you would erect a structure on the premises, instead of just putting a few people inside the house to keep an eye on it. Do you understand that?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, I do understand that. The number of shacks that were constructed here resulted from people who had fled elsewhere. You would have one or two shacks in one homestead.

CHAIRPERSON: And then just finally, the allocation of houses, the occupation of the premises and so forth, that was in line with decisions taken by the community and you were simply just executing those decision, would that be correct?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, it was the community that took the decision to the effect that there's a possibility that people would as time goes on, come back to their houses.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO: Only one aspect, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khumalo, were any of these houses given over to the Self Defence Unit members to be used as a base, the houses where their owners ran away as a result of a fear of violence? Were any of those houses given over to the Self Defence Unit members to be used as a base?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there were some few houses that were used as bases.

MR SIBEKO: I'm referring to the houses which you were allocating to people, the houses where their owners ran away as a result of the violence.

MR KHUMALO: No. Everybody who had fled his home would get it back as soon as he came back.

MR SIBEKO: That is understood, Sir. Okay, fine, maybe we'll understand one another here. The houses that were used as SDU bases or base, belonged to members of your community who were not supporters of the opposition, is that what you say?

MR KHUMALO: Would you please repeat the question, I do not quite understand?

MR SIBEKO: The SDU base were houses which belonged to the people whom I can say were also on your side, that is who were not IFP members, is that what you are saying?

MR KHUMALO: These houses, some of them should I say were houses that had been vacated by IFP members and some others were houses belonging to members of our community.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further questions?

MR SIBEKO: None, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SIBEKO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Khumalo, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED