SABC News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us
 

Amnesty Hearings

Type AMNESTY HEARING

Starting Date 03 February 1999

Location PIETERMARITZBURG

Day 3

Names LU PATRICK SIMA

Case Number AM3704/96

Matter MURDER OF MR MBELE

CHAIRPERSON: Despite our best intentions to commence these hearings as early as quarter past nine in the morning, we have been frustrated in that respect by all kinds of difficulties. Some of these difficulties are not foreseen and cannot be avoided.

However, I think it should just be placed on record, that the Committee has been prepared to commence doing its work. I know Ms Patel has been available and ready to carry on, but we have been frustrated, I am told as a result of the late arrival of the dependants of the deceased and other victims.

Are we ready now, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: We are, thank you Honourable Chairperson. The matter on the role for this morning is that of Lu Patrick Sima, application number 3704/96.

MR SAMUEL: I appear for the applicant in this matter, Your worship.

MR MATJELE: I appear Your Worship, for the victims in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell your surname?

MR MATJELE: My surname is Matjele and my initials are S.L.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, will you call your client?

MR SAMUEL: I call Lu Patrick Sima, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sima, are you the applicant in this matter?

MR SIMA: Yes.

LU PATRICK SIMA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may sit down. Yes Mr Samuel?

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, do you confirm that you are the applicant in this matter?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Do you know John Kulo Mbele?

MR SIMA: Yes, I do.

MR SAMUEL: Do you agree that on the 9th of April 1994 you caused the death of Mr John Kulo Mbele?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Could you tell this hearing as to which political party you belonged to?

MR SIMA: I am an ANC member.

MR SAMUEL: And Mr Mbele, do you know which political party he belonged to?

MR SIMA: Although I did not know it for a fact, but it was clear to me that he was an IFP member.

MR SAMUEL: Could you tell this hearing why you believed that this was a political killing?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get down to the certain preliminaries, as to where, under what circumstances the killing took place before you come down to the reason for his actions.

MR SAMUEL: I am indebted Your Worship, Your Honour. Mr Sima, is it correct that at Margate bus rank at Port Shepstone, you caused the death of Mr Mbele, John Kulo Mbele?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

MR SAMUEL: And is it correct that in causing this death, you used a knife?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

MR SAMUEL: And Mr Mbele died on the same day?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

MR SAMUEL: Could you tell this hearing as to how the death of Kulo John Mbele came to be?

MR SIMA: The area in which I resided, was an ANC ...

CHAIRPERSON: He probably does not know that everything he says, has to be translated, so just tell him to keep an eye on the Translator while he is talking, or the Interpreter rather. Yes, do carry on.

MR SIMA: The area in which I resided, was an ANC area for a long time and when the IFP was established later on, Mr Mbele emerged as a prominent figure in recruiting people into the IFP, regardless of whether those people were ANC members or not.

What he actually did was to force people to join the IFP. He did not recruit them in a decent way. He arrived at my home, and he told me that I should join the IFP.

I told him that I could not do that. He thereafter left. After his departure, he went to another comrade's home and told them the same thing.

That comrade refused to join the IFP as well, but that comrade's parents said he should go and join the IFP. He then did so. He did not return after that.

On realising this, I felt that I could also be in trouble, so I decided that I should leave my home.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of trouble?

MR SIMA: It was obvious that I would be attacked?

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR SIMA: Because I had refused to go and join them in the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR SIMA: I then fled the area and I went to live in Margate. I resided there for about two weeks. On about the third week, my family arrived. On enquiring on why they were there with their property, they informed me that Mr Mbele had gone to my home, and enquired about where I was and he was told that I had left and they were not aware of my whereabouts.

He told them that they should go and fetch me so that I should return, because I was required there in the area. On realising that he had chased, he had managed to chase my parents away, since my parents were not ANC members, I was the only person who was an ANC member, I then realised that we were in danger.

I then decided that I should attempt to look for him, so that we can discuss this matter. I went to town on a Friday, I did not find him. On the Saturday, the following day, I continued looking for him in town. I eventually found him in the afternoon. I tried talking to him.

During the course of our discussion, we differed and he just started insulting me. I told him that as an elder person, he should not insult me when I try talking, discussing things with him. When I told him this, he didn't seem to want to listen to me.

He became aggressive. I saw him withdrawing an object from his bag, on closer inspection I realised that it was an umbrella.

When he went for that object, I thought that he was maybe withdrawing something dangerous. I then decided that before he actually manages to harm me, I should protect myself.

I then withdrew a knife, an Okapi knife from my pocket and from his behaviour it was not possible for me to get closer to him. When I struck the first blow, he made it difficult for me to actually attack him, and I ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not understand how anybody makes it difficult for you to attack him. Tell us what he did when you struck the first blow, what did he do?

MR SIMA: When he withdrew the umbrella, I did not realise at the time that it was an umbrella. I realised that it was a long umbrella and I would not be able to reach him, to get closer to him, he could harm me with that long umbrella.

I then ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, when you struck the first blow, which part of his body did you strike?

MR SIMA: On the chest.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened after you struck him the first blow on the chest?

MR SIMA: When I attempted to strike him for the second time, I could not do so because he was actually attacking me with the umbrella.

That is when I picked up a stone, and I threw it at him, and he became confused. He then fled and got into a taxi. I picked up another stone and threw it at the taxi and it broke the window.

He then left the taxi, got out of the taxi, and ran away. He went into a shop and I followed him. That is where I found him and I attacked him, struck him several times.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, could you go a little bit slower please.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Go slowly, he got out of the taxi and he ran into a shop?

MR SIMA: I then got into the shop and attacked him there.

CHAIRPERSON: What is meant by attacking him, what did you do?

MR SIMA: I stabbed him with the knife.

After that, I left and went back to the taxi rank. I did not report this matter to the police. About after half an hour, the police arrived and they arrested me.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you when you were arrested?

MR SIMA: I was at the taxi rank.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, you told this hearing that Mr Mbele did not just ask you to join the IFP, but he forced you to join the IFP. Could you explain to this hearing what you meant by that?

MR SIMA: Firstly when he came to me, he told me that I should go and join the IFP and when I told him that I could not do that, he left but I could see that he was not happy with what I had said.

After I had left and fled the area, he still continued to pursue my family, telling them that they should fetch me, or else leave the area and come and stay with me wherever I was.

That is why I say that he was forcing us to join the IFP.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, when your family came to visit you in Margate, when you left your home and ran away, did they just come to visit you or did they come with all their belongings?

MR SIMA: They came with all their belongings.

MR SAMUEL: What did you think that meant, were they also in fear of returning?

MR SIMA: I thought that they feared for their lives.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand that, why should they fear for their lives because you said that your parents were members of the IFP? Didn't you say that?

MR SIMA: I did not say that they were members of the IFP, but I said that they were not ANC members, I am the only person who was.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I am sorry about that.

MR SAMUEL: Prior to your returning to Port Shepstone where your house was, were there any other ANC members where you were seeking refuge?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand, when was this because he left his home and went to Margate?

MR SAMUEL: He went to Margate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Whilst you were in Margate ...

CHAIRPERSON: His family joined him whilst he was in Margate?

MR SAMUEL: In Margate, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then what happened?

MR SAMUEL: Were there any other ANC members in Margate?

MR SIMA: I was staying at some person's property, but these were other comrades who were staying in tents in an area called Masnenge.

MR SAMUEL: In Masnenge, did you all discuss as to what you were going to do to return home to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: Yes, we once held a meeting amongst ourselves as comrades where we discussed what measures we could take so that we could return to our homes.

It became clear that we could not return to our homes, because the persons who were responsible for our fleeing, were not willing to hold discussions on negotiations with us.

Our lives were in danger and we had to protect ourselves in whatever manner we could.

MR SAMUEL: Did you all discuss as to what manners and what methods you are going to use to defend yourselves?

MR SIMA: Even though it was not clear, it was not put clearly as to a specific method that we are going to use, but it was obvious that we were going to use whatever means we could.

MR SAMUEL: In the circumstances, what did you think was appropriate, these necessary means meant? Did it mean killing people?

MR SIMA: The first thing I thought was that we should opt for negotiations and failing that, we were going to have to fight.

CHAIRPERSON: Just stop here for a minute. You said that whilst you were in Margate, you met other comrades and you said that your lives were in danger.

Were your lives in danger while you were in Margate?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why were your lives in danger in Margate?

MR SIMA: There was a campaign that had been started that all those people who had fled, should be brought back to the area by whatever means.

ADV DE JAGER: Who organised this campaign?

MR SIMA: This was a campaign that was discussed amongst us as comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: I have some difficulty understanding, perhaps you can explain. You were driven out, or people were driven out from Port Shepstone because Inkatha did not want ANC people there, is that right?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you had gone to Margate, why did they want to bring you back?

MR SIMA: They had intentions and those intentions were that we should join the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you didn't join the IFP and so they drove you out, now you are gone from there? Why did they want to bring you back?

MR SIMA: They wanted to ensure that the area would belong to people who were IFP members, they wanted to ensure that everyone who stayed in the area, belonged to the IFP. That is why they were after us.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you clear that up, I don't know whether you realise this, but to me it doesn't seem logical.

MR SAMUEL: I do. I do Your Honour. Mr Sima, you did not want to join Inkatha whilst you were living in Port Shepstone, and you fled Port Shepstone to go and live in Margate?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: And thereafter your family joined you in Margate? Now, you were out of the area, you were out of Port Shepstone, why do you think, one, that you lived in fear and secondly, could you explain to this Commission as to why you believe that the Inkatha people, the people that had driven you out of Port Shepstone, wanted to bring you back into Port Shepstone?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Samuel, I have asked who organised the campaign for them to return and he said the comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, there was a campaign to bring us back by the IFP?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but I specifically asked who organised it and he said the comrades, that is why I am not understanding. I thought, I am putting it to you in order to clear that up, that in fact they wanted to regain the lost turf in Port Shepstone, I don't know whether that could have played ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is a slightly different question from the one that we are trying to clear up.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words my colleague here has some understanding that there was a campaign by people of his group, to want to go back to Port Shepstone. Was there such a campaign organised by his people, to want to go back to Port Shepstone, or was it a campaign by the IFP in Port Shepstone, to want these people back?

If it is the latter, then I don't understand why having driven them out, they should launch a campaign to bring them back? Perhaps that is the difficulty I would like you to clear up.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, was there a campaign, let me put it differently, whilst you were in Margate, were there other refugees in Margate that came from Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: Yes, there were.

MR SAMUEL: And did the ANC, did the comrades decide that because they were driven out, they wanted to go back to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Or alternatively is it that the IFP came to Margate to take you back into Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: The exact thing is that we as comrades who flew, we actually wanted to go back to our homes.

MR SAMUEL: So there was no question of the IFP then, wanting you back into Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: It is not the truth that IFP wanted us to go back. It is us the comrades, who wanted to go back to our homes.

MR SAMUEL: Your Honour, I think that clears up the misunderstanding.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR SAMUEL: Did you know Mr Mbele personally?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Were you born and brought up in the Port Shepstone area?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

MR SAMUEL: And prior to Mr Mbele approaching you to join the IFP, did you respect Mr Mbele as an elder?

MR SIMA: Yes, I respected him more than the word itself.

MR SAMUEL: When you got back from Margate to Port Shepstone to talk to Mr Mbele, was it your intention, or were you angry with Mr Mbele for forcing your family out of the Port Shepstone area?

MR SIMA: Not really, I wasn't angry with him, not necessarily.

MR SAMUEL: But were you angry with the organisation that he now joined, or represented?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

MR SAMUEL: After you had spoken to Mr Mbele, and he treated you badly, did you get angry at that stage?

MR SIMA: Not exactly at that particular moment.

MR SAMUEL: Did you think that by discussing with Mr Mbele, that you could have resolved the situation so that your family could come back to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: Yes, I believe so.

MR SAMUEL: When the situation got out of control, and you had pulled out your knife, was it because you wanted to kill Mr Mbele, because you felt insulted or was it part of the discussions that you held with other comrades in Margate?

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean now?

MR SAMUEL: There was this discussion Your Worship, that they would defend themselves by whatever means in order to go back into Port Shepstone.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) ... somewhat loosely, you know, you don't go around defending yourself, by arming yourself with a knife and going there. If you go there with a knife, it is to attack, not to defend, isn't it?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Your Worship, my apologies for the use of the word.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, when you pulled out your knife, the question is that you want to know when he pulled out his knife at that time, what was it that caused him to do so, is that right?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, that is correct Your Honour.

Mr Sima, when you pulled out your knife to Mr Mbele, what was your reason for doing so? Was it because you wanted to defend yourself or was it for another reason, that you wanted to attack him?

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you pull out your knife, that should be the question, isn't it?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SIMA: Yes, I was protecting myself, because he was beginning to be aggressive.

MR SAMUEL: And then you stabbed Mr Mbele?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Was that an act of self defence at that stage?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

MR SAMUEL: And I presumed that Mr Mbele was still alive at that stage, because he ran to the taxi and thereafter, to the shop?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now, the stab, one would assume was not a fatal blow at that stage, your first blow was not the fatal blow?

MR MATJELE: Your Worship, I would like to object from the way in which my learned colleague is asking questions, he seems to be leading more often than just ask open questions. May he please restrict himself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think whether his first blow was a fatal blow or not, is something which we may not know. He might not have died on the spot at the time, when he struck the blow, but that may have contributed towards his death.

MR SAMUEL: That might be so Your Worship. Mr Sima, you told this Commission, that thereafter in the shop, you again attacked Mr Mbele?

CHAIRPERSON: He again stabbed him.

MR SAMUEL: Stabbed Mr Mbele?

MR SIMA: Yes, that it is so.

MR SAMUEL: Could you tell this Commission why you stabbed Mr Mbele at the shop?

MR SIMA: In actual fact, it was not my intention to kill him, but rather to teach him a lesson that negotiations is the solution, rather than physical strength.

MR SAMUEL: Did you believe that this kind of conduct was part of the discussion that you held in Margate?

CHAIRPERSON: Discussions between who?

MR SAMUEL: Did you feel that your actions in teaching Mr Mbele a lesson by using physical force, was within the framework of the discussions that you held with the comrades in Margate?

MR SIMA: Well, it is apparent the way we actually had put it that we were supposed to protect ourselves in whichever way. Whatever I was doing, I was actually doing it according to that if we fail, if negotiations fail, we should actually protect ourselves in whichever way.

CHAIRPERSON: The first time you struck a blow with a knife, that was on his chest, he ran away. Where did he run to?

MR SIMA: In the taxi.

CHAIRPERSON: You then threw stones at the window of the taxi, and broke the window?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst he was in the taxi, did you stab him again?

MR SIMA: No, I threw only a stone and then he came out of the taxi and ran towards the shop, into the shop.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, when he ran to the shop, you followed him?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the shop, you stabbed him again?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were asked why did you stab him, you said you wanted to teach him a lesson that negotiations were better than violence, is that correct?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did you stab him in the shop?

MR SIMA: In actual fact, I can't quite remember, but it was several times.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the way you show him that negotiations were better than violence, by stabbing him several times?

MR SIMA: In that particular moment, that was the only way I actually thought ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is senseless, isn't it? You were killing the man, how would that be teaching him that negotiations were better than violence, when you are killing him?

MR SIMA: I actually indicated that it was not my intention to kill him, but to teach him a lesson. Unfortunately he died.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it is not unfortunately he died, he didn't die accidentally. You stabbed him several times, that is why he died?

MR SIMA: What I can actually put clearly is that at that particular time, I was not in a position of thinking otherwise, because I was still a teenager.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you were not a teenager, you were determined to kill this man, that is why you went on stabbing him several times?

MR SIMA: That happened - because it wasn't my intention to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you, that you go on stabbing a man and say it isn't my intention to kill you, but I am going to go on stabbing you?

MR SIMA: Well, it was not my intention, it does not actually puzzle me, that.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Now, Mr Sima, were you the only person that attacked the deceased on that, Mr Mbele, in the shop?

MR SIMA: Yes, I am the only one who actually was attacking him from the taxi's until he actually entered the shop.

As far as I am concerned, although I did not actually see who the other comrades were, it is apparent to me that the other comrades were around.

Yes, the other comrades came later, when I have actually left the deceased.

MR SAMUEL: You told this Commissions that you wanted to teach Mr Mbele a lesson by stabbing him, not to use violence, rather negotiate than use violence. Were you directing this to Mr Mbele himself, or to other followers of the IFP?

CHAIRPERSON: Were they there?

MR SAMUEL: They were not, Your Worship, but what I am trying to say is ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is an (indistinct) questions, isn't it?

MR SAMUEL: It might be so Your Worship, but by attacking one member of a group, the other members will get to know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words if one member was supposed to be a lesson to the other members?

MR SAMUEL: It might be so Your Worship, in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you are trying to get at?

MR SAMUEL: That is what I am trying to get at.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say that there were other members who came there, when you were in the shop and stabbing him, were there others who were stabbing him as well?

MR SIMA: They did not stab him while I was still there. What I remember faintly is when I left him there, the comrades were actually then attacking him and they were toyi-toying, although I cannot recall who those people were.

CHAIRPERSON: How were they armed?

MR SIMA: Knives and stones.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he inside the shop when you left him?

MR SIMA: Yes, he was inside the store.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they, the other people use stones to attack him, did you see it, while he was in the shop?

MR SIMA: Everything, after my departure, I saw the comrades outside the store, toyi-toying and as he was inside, I was not sure what was happening inside, whether they were toyi-toying after killing him or stabbing him with the knife, or they were toyi-toying while the incident was still occurring inside, because he was still inside the shop.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you are concerned, they may not have stabbed him at all?

MR SIMA: Well, I cannot be sure of what they were doing, because I did not see.

CHAIRPERSON: That is right. What I am saying is that they may not have stabbed him too?

MR SIMA: It is also possible that they stabbed him.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did you stab him in the shop?

MR SIMA: Although I cannot remember, it was several times.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, have you seen the medical legal post mortem report which appears on page 43?

MR SAMUEL: I have perused it Your Worship, not in detail though.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Paragraph 4, the external appearance of the body, the conditions of the limbs, do you see that? Page 43?

MR SAMUEL: I have the page, yes. There seems to be a number of stab wounds, it is about 20 in all, 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The Doctor's report on the body of the deceased, shows that there were 19 stab wounds on his body, do you understand?

MR SIMA: Yes, I hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: From the questioning of the Commissioner, do you believe that you had stabbed Mr Mbele 19 times, although you don't recall the number of times you stabbed him?

MR SIMA: Well, I don't think it can only be me. It can be 10 times or about 13 times, I don't think it can actually reach 19.

ADV SIGODI: I think I would like to place on record that there were in fact 25 stab wounds if you follow through the post mortem report. There were more stab wounds on other parts of the body. If you total them up, it is 25 stab wounds.

ADV DE JAGER: I think perhaps the other stab wounds would relate, be some of the 19, because three into the liver or something, but I think that is covered by the description at the beginning?

There were eight epigastric stab wounds.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that could be the same stab wounds, some of them, entering the liver for instance. I don't know, but I presume it could be.

MR MATJELE: Your Worship, if I may also try to highlight, I think there is somewhere it is stated that he had a wound also on the heart. It is not reflected on any of these, unless if I am mistaken Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on). I think it is a wrong spelling, it should be pericardial, relating to the heart. However, Mr Samuel would you refer to page 47? Do you see that statement made by your client, it is an affidavit?

MR SAMUEL: I do Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: He says there, I was by myself, my friend Sandile Sima, who was arrested and later released, for simply being my friend, I am the only one who killed the deceased.

MR SAMUEL: I read that Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should put that to your client.

MR SAMUEL: As the Court, the Commission pleases. Mr Sima, you made an affidavit on the 25th of January this year, in which you state that your friend Sandile Sima was arrested and later released and you go on to say I am the only one who killed the deceased.

Could you tell the Commission why you made this affidavit?

MR SIMA: It is because when I was talking to Mr Mbele, there were only two of us until I stabbed him, there were two of us, and until he entered the shop, there was only two of us.

Thereafter the comrades were outside. I wouldn't dare say Sandile is the person who I was with, when I was killing, that could be a lie.

MR SAMUEL: Could you tell the Commission why it was necessary for you to make the affidavit when Sandile was never mentioned previously?

MR SIMA: When I was arrested, if my memory serves me well, I was arrested and then the following day, he was also arrested.

In court, I actually indicated that I do not know him and I could not say that I was with somebody when I was doing this crime.

MR SAMUEL: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, we do not have complete extracts of the proceedings at the trial, and I believe that he has now clarified why he has made this affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, apart from implicating or mentioning Sima or trying to say Sima was not involved, what I am concerned with, his statement is that I am the only one who killed the deceased.

I get a confused picture, because he is trying to say that in addition to him, there is some doubt in his mind, whether some others also joined in the killing of the deceased, other which he called comrades.

MR SAMUEL: As the Chairman pleases. Mr Sima ...

ADV DE JAGER: If you go to the previous sentence, it was in the afternoon at the taxi rank and I was all by myself?

MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, you are taking full responsibility for the death of Mr Mbele in this affidavit. When making this affidavit, did you believe that others were implicated in causing the death of Mr Mbele?

MR SIMA: As I was actually saying that, it is because I did not exactly see what they did. What I know is that I am the one who stabbed him.

MR SAMUEL: Do you believe that these wounds that you inflicted upon Mr Mbele, could have been the direct cause of his death?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Sima, we have heard how the death of Mr Mbele came about and your action in causing his death, are you happy about what you did or what is the position today?

MR SIMA: I am not happy about it, because it was not my intention to kill him, because I knew that he is my neighbour and he was a respected member of the community, but the circumstances under which we were living, it occurred that I killed him.

That doesn't make me happy at all.

MR SAMUEL: Are you remorseful for your actions sir?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Sir, although you made an application for amnesty, if this Commission decides not to grant you amnesty, would you be resentful or would you still be remorseful sir?

MR SIMA: What is important is that I came here to explain to the deceased's family why I killed him, whether the Commission actually forgives me or grant me amnesty or not, that actually is not the matter. What is important is that the family now knows exactly, that is my point of view, why I actually did the act and how, the exact truth.

MR SAMUEL: You have this opportunity now to ask for forgiveness from the family, would you like to do that sir?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just pause here. Ms Patel, who represents the deceased's family here?

MS PATEL: Mr Matjele Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Which member of the family?

MR MATJELE: Your Worship?

CHAIRPERSON: Which member of the deceased's family is here, is his widow here?

MR MATJELE: Your Worship, the widow is here and the daughter and the children, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you ask the widow and the children to stand.

MR MATJELE: As the Court pleases. They are standing Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Here are the people, it is now a chance for you to ask them, or to tell them what you think about your conduct.

MR SIMA: To the family, I actually ask for forgiveness for what I have done, because I did not do it, not as an intention, but it was due to the circumstances that I should, it was the circumstances at that particular time, that either one of us were supposed to die at that particular time.

However, they should take it that that was made by God that in one day, it will happen, not that it is because I was actually doing it intentionally. I ask for forgiveness and if it happens that they forgive me, and if I go outside, and then if there is any help that I can offer to them, I am prepared to do that if I can.

I am very sad and don't like what I did. I please ask for the forgiveness.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that it?

MR SAMUEL: That is the evidence of the applicant sir.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment and resume in 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

LU PATRICK SIMA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matjele, are there any questions you wish to put to the applicant?

MR MATJELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, there are questions I would like to put.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MATJELE: Mr Sima, when Mr Samuel your Attorney asked you questions, started asking you questions, he asked you if you knew or if the deceased, Mr Mbele was an IFP member and you said you were not sure, isn't it so?

MR SIMA: That is correct. But it was clear to me that he was an IFP member, although I did not have that confirmation.

CHAIRPERSON: He had no proof of it, he said he was an IFP member, but I don't think he had proof.

MR MATJELE: Sir, you were not sure that he was an IFP member? Would I be correct if I say that your presumption came from the fact that he was an induna in the area?

MR SIMA: Yes, and also because he went around telling people to join the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could the Interpreter kindly repeat the question, I didn't have my earphones on.

INTERPRETER: The response was yes, as well as because he was the person who went around telling people to join the IFP.

MR MATJELE: I would like to put it to you sir, that the whole story about Mr Mbele going around, recruiting for the IFP, is not true. You just built it up to justify your heinous act of killing him. What would be your comment?

MR SIMA: I would like to put it clearly that what I said about Mr Mbele, about him telling people to join the IFP, that is true.

Because he was an induna, I thought he was being used to fulfil the objectives of some people in the IFP. When he did this, going around telling people to join the IFP and because he was an induna, I assumed that he must be an IFP member.

MR MATJELE: Then if I may ask, if you had such strong evidence that he was an IFP member, that he came rallying around for the IFP, why did you say you were not sure that he was an IFP member, if you may clarify that sir?

CHAIRPERSON: That is a debating point, really, isn't it. He sees the man going around telling people to join the IFP, he draws a conclusion that this man is an IFP man. He may not know that the man carries an IFP card.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, Mr Matjele, you got the information, you could put it to him, if you've got information that he wasn't an IFP member, put it straight to him and say this is the position, I put it to you.

MR MATJELE: I put it to you Mr Sima, that according to the family members, Mr Mbele was not an IFP member. The area is an IFP area, he may be a supporter of IFP, but he did not go around rallying for the IFP. What is your comment?

MR SAMUEL: I wish to raise an objection to that Your Worship. I refer the Commission to page 49 of the bundle, where in fact the wife says, Betwina Mbele says that they were, at our area we are all IFP members, as well as the deceased. The second paragraph, third paragraph. At our area, we are all IFP members, as well as the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: Page?

MR SAMUEL: 49.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Your Worship, I think just to clarify my question, my question was mainly on the fact which is alleged by the accused, by the applicant, that the deceased was rallying around, I do not dispute the fact that they were supporters or members and the area was an IFP area, at all. The main question is on, I am putting it to him that it did not happen that the deceased went around, rallying around, what is his comment?

CHAIRPERSON: I think his commend has been clear, that he says he concluded that this man was an IFP man, because he went around trying to recruit people to convert them to IFP.

He draws the conclusion that this is an IFP man. You are saying that he did not go around recruiting people?

MR MATJELE: Yes, the version is that the deceased never went around recruiting people.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you must put to him. You see, it is put to you that Mr Mbele did not go around trying to get people to become members of the IFP. The lawyer representing the family is putting that to you.

MR SIMA: The deceased came to my home and he did say that I should join the IFP and I explained to him that I would not do so.

He continued further, going to other persons' houses. He even went to another comrade's home and told them the same thing and the comrade refused, but that comrade's parents, forced him to go and join the IFP, which he did.

After the departure of that comrade, he never returned home. Up to this day, his whereabouts are unknown.

MR MATJELE: Mr Sima, can you tell me who this comrade was, his full name?

MR SIMA: I am referring to comrade Fikile.

MR MATJELE: Comrade Fikile who, sir with due respect?

MR SIMA: Fikile Mendu.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR SIMA: Mendu.

MR MATJELE: Sir, and thereafter you say that you then ran away, fled to Margate, isn't that so?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MATJELE: When you were at Margate, you knew the deceased's family were selling around at the taxi rank, isn't it so?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What were they doing, selling?

MR MATJELE: They were selling apples, both the mother and the daughter.

Having heard that you were wanted, when your parents came, or your parent came to you at Margate, did you make any efforts to go to the deceased's wife and try to ask what it was all about?

MR SIMA: I did think about that, that I should speak to a member of his family, but I had difficulty approaching them when I was not aware of what their opinions were about Mr Mbele's activities, even if they knew about it or not.

MR MATJELE: But sir, along the way, I mean your motives were that, they were clear, I mean you were not fighting, you were not doing anything wrong, even as you approached Mr Mbele according to your version, why couldn't you at first, go and ask the members of the family, the daughter or the mother, since you grew up within the same area and I believe that you considered them to be your neighbours and you were in good terms with them?

CHAIRPERSON: I think he has given part of an answer to that, because he didn't know what their thoughts were about Mr Mbele, so he would rather talk to Mr Mbele instead of talking to the wife and the daughter.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chairman. So Mr Sima, you say that from then, after your parents arrived at Margate, you then went around looking for Mr Mbele. On two occasions, you did not find him, and on the third occasion you found him, did I hear you correctly?

MR SIMA: I said I went out to look for him on a Friday, and I returned, did the same thing on the Saturday and I did get him, I managed to get hold of him on the Saturday.

MR MATJELE: When you went to him, you say that you were going with a good intention, an intention just to negotiate with him, and try to negotiate with him, and hear if you cannot arrive at a certain settlement? Isn't it so?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

MR MATJELE: Can you tell me for what reason did you carry a knife as you were going to negotiate with Mr Mbele, sir?

MR SIMA: Because of the situation that prevailed then, one was not safe because wherever you went, you had to be on guard. I did not have any other weapon except for a knife.

That is why I carried it. It was not my intention to attack or kill Mr Mbele with that knife.

MR MATJELE: You mentioned that the situation was not, because of the situation you had to carry a knife. I am having a slight problem, I would like to understand, was the situation also tense in Margate as well?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MATJELE: Are you implying that even at the area you had fled to, there were still IFP members who could kill you at any time?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

MR MATJELE: Is it not correct sir, that according to your version, that there at Margate, that is where there were many comrades, and you used to have some meetings and even where you, unless if I misunderstood Mr Chairman, where you also arranged a campaign together, which means it was a free place where you could do anything, together with your friends and with your comrades?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you know, understanding it, he meets those likeminded people, the comrades, but those are not the only people in that area, there are also others. So when he meets those who are likeminded and who want to go back to Port Shepstone, among them, they decided that they want to go back to Port Shepstone.

But then there was many other people in Margate at the time, who need not belong to that group of comrades.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Your Worship. But the point I was driving at is, if Margate was a free area, why was there a need for you to go around, carrying a knife?

MR SIMA: I have explained before that the situation was not free at Margate, because there were people at Margate who would go around, looking for certain individuals.

I am certain that I was one of those they wanted.

CHAIRPERSON: If you say free, I think what you really mean is that there was no violence in the Margate area?

MR MATJELE: That is my point Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Violence, criminal violence, political violence, any kind of violence?

MR MATJELE: I am talking specifically about political violence, there was some form of tolerance in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: There was some violence in Margate, there was also violence, is that what you are saying?

MR SIMA: From Margate to Port Shepstone, there was violence all around that area.

MR MATJELE: So is my understanding, is my understanding correct that you fled from a strife torn area, to another strife torn area?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is so. The situation was slightly better at Margate because there were some areas there where you could be safe.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage, it was about 20 days before the election, and were all the parties campaigning and were the atmosphere, a political atmosphere all over the province?

MR SIMA: There was that atmosphere because even the violence itself, was meant to disrupt those elections.

MR MATJELE: Mr Sima, you also mentioned something to the Committee earlier on when you gave evidence, that you respected Mr Mbele, isn't it so?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

MR MATJELE: And I believe that you respected him as an induna in the area, and also as an elderly person within your area, isn't that so? That is what you are actually informing, telling this Committee?

MR SIMA: That is so. To add onto that, he was also a community member, and I did not have any knowledge about any wrongs that he had done in the community, therefore I respected him.

MR MATJELE: And also, you also mentioned that you had no resentment even after your family had fled, and had joined you at Margate, did I hear you correctly sir?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MATJELE: Just in passing sir, if I may ask, was it for the first time, you were insulted by a human being?

MR SIMA: Please repeat the question.

MR MATJELE: Sir the question is simple, was it for the first time in your whole life, that you were insulted by a human being?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it this way just to make it clear, you said in your evidence that the deceased, Mr Mbele, insulted you, do you remember saying that?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question now is, is it the first time that any human being ever insulted you?

MR SIMA: No, it was not.

MR MATJELE: So if it was not for the first time any person insulted you, what caused you to be so outrageous at Mr Mbele at just saying one insult to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just clear up one more thing, because I haven't heard what the insult was in the first place. Shouldn't we get that clear?

Please tell us, you have told us Mr Mbele insulted you, please tell us, how did he insult you or what did he say?

MR SIMA: He called me a thug, a comrade.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, he called you a what?

MR SIMA: A thug?

CHAIRPERSON: A thug? He called you a thug? And what else?

MR SIMA: He said I never wash and I should go and wash and prepare myself to go to a meeting where my presence was required.

That is not the reason though why I attacked him.

ADV SIGODI: Then why did you attack him?

MR SIMA: The reason for the attack was that when I responded to what he was saying, he became aggressive.

ADV SIGODI: In what way did he become aggressive?

MR SIMA: He withdrew that umbrella which I referred to before. When, at that point, when he took out the umbrella, I did not realise then that it was an umbrella, I only realised that later.

ADV SIGODI: What did you think it was?

MR SIMA: I thought it was a weapon, a sharp pointed weapon.

ADV SIGODI: Where did he get this umbrella from?

MR SIMA: From a bag.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw that it was only an umbrella, why didn't you move away?

MR SIMA: I - at that time, the trouble had already started, and I had to carry on.

ADV DE JAGER: I can't quite visualise the picture. Did Mr Mbele stand in front of you when you had this discussion?

MR SIMA: Yes, he was in front of me.

ADV DE JAGER: Where was his hands?

MR SIMA: He carried the bag, but his hands were actually on his sides.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did he keep this umbrella?

MR SIMA: It was in the bag.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was the bag?

MR SIMA: He carried it on his shoulder.

ADV DE JAGER: We couldn't hear the answer, was he carrying the bag on his shoulder, and he put the bag on the ground next to him?

INTERPRETER: He said the bag was slung over his shoulder and his hands were at his sides.

ADV DE JAGER: And where was the umbrella?

MR SIMA: I did not see the umbrella at first, but I only saw it when he took it out of the bag.

ADV DE JAGER: So it wasn't a long umbrella, was it a short one?

MR SIMA: It was a short umbrella.

MR MATJELE: Sir, you said the insult was not the reason for you to stab the deceased. Isn't it so?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is so.

MR MATJELE: So, and according to you or the inference that I am drawing is that you decided to stab him, when you saw him pulling the umbrella, isn't it so?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is so.

MR MATJELE: And before you could stab him, you were able to identify that that is an umbrella and not a weapon, isn't that so?

MR SIMA: I saw it when I had already struck the first blow. I realised thereafter that it was an umbrella.

MR MATJELE: Sir, I would like to put it to you that you are not giving this Committee a true reflection in the sense that when you gave evidence, in your evidence in chief, you said that you realised the umbrella, that it was an umbrella before you struck the blow and even thereafter, the impression has always been that you thought that, you realised that it was the umbrella before you struck him, but now after this question has been posed, you are saying that, you are changing and saying that you realised it was the umbrella after you struck the blow. Which is the true reflection sir?

MR SIMA: If I remember correctly, I said he withdrew an umbrella but at the time, I did not realise that it was an umbrella.

Then I tried to strike that first blow, and then thereafter I realised that it was an umbrella. He then fled into a taxi and then I threw a stone and he alighted from the taxi, and when he got off the taxi, he no longer had the umbrella.

MR MATJELE: Before you reach the taxi sir, we are still here on the issue of the first stab wound which you inflicted.

MR SAMUEL: May I at this point raise an objection Mr Chairman. I believe the evidence in chief was that he did not know that it was an umbrella. He says the first time, I concede that the hearing about the sequence of the stab wound, the first stab wound, I gave no indication, even in the evidence in chief, that the applicant had either stabbed the deceased before the umbrella was pulled or after the umbrella.

It seemed that it was done simultaneously Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He saw this man drawing something out of the bag, he assumed that it might be some sharp instrument, that led him to stab Mr Mbele. It was at that time he discovered that what was pulled out of the bag, was an umbrella?

MR SAMUEL: That is how I ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is the picture that I get.

MR MATJELE: Although Mr Chairman, that is not the picture that I got from the onset, because I was really concentrating on that, even when he gave evidence before, because according to the statements, the way in which I wrote the facts, I wrote that he says that the deceased reached out and took out a sharp instrument, and then he realised that it was an umbrella. I then opened an Okapi knife and that is when I made an attack and inflicted a wound, that is the impression I am having Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: He did say that. We've got two versions.

MR MATJELE: That is my point Your Worship, Mr Chairman, that there are two versions at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Just clear it up, whether he stabbed him before he realised that it was an umbrella, or after realising that it was in fact an umbrella.

You may clear that up with him.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to know sir, which of the two statements are true, whether you inflicted the wound after the umbrella was taken or before, before you realised that it was the umbrella since there are two versions now which you have given to this hearing?

MR SIMA: What is true is that he withdrew an umbrella from the bag, and at that moment I did not realise it is an umbrella, and that is when I struck him with the first blow.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I with your permission, ask him a question or two?

MR MATJELE: You may sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly tell us why did you kill Mr Mbele?

MR SIMA: The reason for killing him is that he did not like to turn to negotiations, he appeared as a person who was prepared to fight or he tended to be aggressive.

ADV DE JAGER: So that had nothing to do with politics?

MR SIMA: It is a political motive.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you ever attacked personally by the IFP or by anybody?

MR SIMA: At some stage, several occasions, IFP tried to attack me.

ADV DE JAGER: Where?

MR SIMA: In the place where I previously resided, there were the comrades residing at a place called Nqabashe, where they were residing in a certain house, and those people actually, the tenants in that house, ran away.

That is where they tried to attack, it was at night, and they killed five comrades and then I managed to escape, how, I do not know.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that in Margate or where?

MR SIMA: Yes, it was in Margate.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you ever attacked at your house, at Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: I ran away from home because they destroyed, they came and destroyed the house.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they destroy your parents' house or the house where you were staying?

MR SIMA: My parents' house.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you there at that stage?

MR SIMA: No, I wasn't around.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it after you had killed Mr Mbele or before you killed Mr Mbele?

MR SIMA: The day that Mr Mbele was injured, and that evening they destroyed the house, that afternoon they destroyed the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, sometimes I have difficulty understanding you. You said I ran away from Port Shepstone because they destroyed my house, did you say that?

MR SIMA: No, what I said is that I left the house, because he did come to my house.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you said, what I have taken down is that I ran away from Port Shepstone because they destroyed my house, that is not correct?

MR SIMA: The house was not literally destructed, but we actually ran away in that area, because they were being beaten in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: No, just be careful, you haven't mentioned anything about being beaten yourself, you have told us that you left Port Shepstone because you refused to join the Inkatha Freedom Party and this man insisted that you should. You didn't want to and so you left.

That is the reason you have given us this morning?

MR SIMA: By that I mean the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: What attack?

MR SIMA: To be attacked by a group of people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, has you client said anything at all that he was attacked before he left Port Shepstone?

MR SAMUEL: I agree with Your Honour, Your Worship, he never mentioned anything previously, either in his evidence in chief or in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's make some progress, let's move to something else.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sima, at the time, I mean that was 20 days before the elections, wasn't that so?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you can agree with that.

MR MATJELE: Yes, Your Worship. Since it was 20 days before the elections of 1994, the first elections of this country, the honourable President of the African National Congress, your organisation, President Mandela and other respectable leaders, they were passing information that people should not resort to violence, that was the policy of the ANC, isn't that so sir?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is so. But people at grassroots did not actually take it that that should be the case, they were actually perpetrating violence.

MR MATJELE: I am actually asking you this question sir, because from the look of things, it does not appear that you and your friends were actually acting on the mandate of the ANC in the sense that even in your meeting which you allege that took place to carry out a campaign, you mentioned that you decided that you were going to use any means necessary to achieve whatever you wanted to achieve. Did I hear you correctly sir?

MR SIMA: Yes, the aim was that we should go back home.

MR MATJELE: So even if the means you were going to use, were criminal, you had no problem, as long as you can go back home in a strife torn area?

CHAIRPERSON: Bearing that it was criminal conduct that drove them away from the home in the first place.

MR MATJELE: I do not understand very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Bearing that it was criminal activity that drove them away from that area in the first place, so they want to go back home.

They were driven out, according to his version, they were driven out because Inkatha wanted to drive them out.

MR MATJELE: I understand Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Criminal activity?

MR MATJELE: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on), now they wanted to get back home, and (microphone not on), do you understand what I am saying?

MR MATJELE: I understand Mr Chairman. So sir, you moved away from Margate because you were afraid and running away from the IFP's attacks and act which according to you, was wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: You moved away from Port Shepstone to Margate.

MR MATJELE: My apologies, you moved away from Port Shepstone to Margate, moving away from what was happening there, the violence which was there, the criminal activities carried out by the IFP, isn't it so?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is the truth.

MR MATJELE: And having arrived at Margate, you decided to plan to go back to Margate, and to Port Shepstone, and use the very same means which were violent, and which your leaders or the leaders of the organisation, were actually against right back at Port Shepstone, is that my understanding?

MR SIMA: Will you please repeat.

MR MATJELE: Sir, my point is clear, what I am trying to say is that you were caused to move from Port Shepstone by illegal means or criminal actions from the IFP members, and then you were deciding to go back to Port Shepstone, by any means necessary, including using the very same tactics or the criminal activities which your leaders or the ANC leaders, were against. Am I understanding you to be saying that?

MR SIMA: No.

MR MATJELE: Can you explain to this hearing what did you mean when you say that you were going to use any means?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've said, you know, you've got the answer that he said that although the leaders called for peace because of the election, at grassroots, the people had not accepted the idea. Nobody considered themselves bound by what the leaders were saying.

Here were people who were driven out from their homes, and they were going to resort to whatever means possible, to get back home.

MR MATJELE: I understand thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we must move on now, because really whatever the leaders said or didn't say, does not matter, it is not going to influence the decision of this Committee on whether he should get amnesty or not.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether Mr Mbele in fact went around and showed targets for other people, so that they could kill ANC people?

MR SIMA: Yes. He did that.

ADV DE JAGER: How did he point out and to whom did he point out that people?

MR SIMA: What he did was to write a list of people who should actually be taken. Those people who did not want to join IFP or those people who did not want the other people to be recruited for IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: What would happen then?

MR SIMA: And thereafter their houses would be destroyed, if such people are not found.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did this happen and when?

MR SIMA: From Lamont to Mvugeni, at night.

ADV DE JAGER: Did this influence you at all, in acting against him?

MR SIMA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now could you kindly explain to us, why didn't you tell us that was the reason why you killed him, if that was the reason indeed?

MR SIMA: What I can put clearly is that although he was doing that, myself in particular, I did not actually take it that that should be the reason that he should be attacked.

However, if there was any means we could resort to negotiations, and that failed, those attempts then failed. As a result, I went by myself, because of the deed that he directly did to me.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, what was your position in the ANC?

MR SIMA: At Lamont, it is a small area, we actually be grouped with Mvugeni, but if there were an urgent meeting to unite the youth, I was the one who actually would unite and organise the youth for urgent meetings.

ADV SIGODI: And who was the IFP leaders in Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: In Port Shepstone, although I do not know who exactly they were, there were people that I considered as killers and thugs, but not as leaders.

ADV SIGODI: So why did you, you say that when you wanted to go home, you went to Margate to look for the deceased twice. You first went to look for him on Friday, why did you choose the deceased particularly to go and look for him?

MR SIMA: He is the person who was actually going house to house. It would be, it will infiltrate in a correct way to the other people that used to meet with him, if I actually talked to him.

ADV SIGODI: Was this a decision made by you when you had your meeting in Margate as ANC comrades, that you should go and look for the deceased?

MR SIMA: We took that as comrades, that I must go and try to negotiate with him.

ADV SIGODI: So were you the only person who went to negotiate with the deceased?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is so.

ADV SIGODI: Where were the other comrades?

MR SIMA: They were still at Masnenge.

ADV SIGODI: But then at the time that you were attacking, when you were defending yourself from the deceased, you said that there were other comrades toyi-toying and they were armed with knives and stones outside. Where did these comrades come from?

MR SIMA: As a person who actually went to the deceased in the first day, that was the day that we were discussing with the comrades.

Then it is the truth that when, after attacking the deceased, living him there at the shop, the comrades were there. Where they came from, I do not know. That area is a place that is full of people.

ADV SIGODI: In other words they were not present when you were negotiating with the deceased first?

MR SIMA: No, they were not around.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know any of the comrades who were there, toyi-toying outside?

MR SIMA: The comrades who were there, I can't actually know their names, although I know them by sight, because most of them were from the township called Gamalakhe and others were from Margate, but the ones that I was discussing with, I think they were remaining there at Masnenge, because the community there should have, should always have people protecting them.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you finished? Try to avoid covering the ground that has already been covered?

MR MATJELE: I will try not to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: If there is anything that hasn't been touched, ...

MR MATJELE: Sir, you mentioned that when you attacked Mr Mbele, you were actually trying to teach him a lesson, that is the understanding that I got.

My question is basically that you stabbed him, he ran into a taxi and then you threw him with a stone and you also threw another stone, which hit the window of the taxi, he ran out of the taxi, he ran into a cafe and you chased him and stabbed him also furthermore, inside that store. Is that not indicative of the fact that you were out to kill him, and not just to teach him a lesson?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) You can't go around saying that you are trying to teach a man a lesson by killing him, you know. I don't think you should flog that line any more.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that the Committee accepts that he was trying to teach somebody a lesson by doing what he did.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sima, if I may take you back a bit, to when you appeared before the Court, with the permission of the Chair, when you were asked how do you plead to the charge of murder, from the version it appears that you pleaded a bad denial, you said that you did not know anything about the incident, you did not kill Mr Mbele. Do you remember that sir?

MR SIMA: Yes, I do remember that.

MR MATJELE: And furthermore, when you were asked as to what caused the injury which was on your hand, on your arm, you mentioned that it was caused by the glasses of the door and there were other people who were stabbing the deceased, but you were not part of it. Do you remember that also?

MR SIMA: Yes, I do remember that.

ADV DE JAGER: You in fact lied at the Court, isn't that so?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so. To add on that, in my opinion it was difficult because if there is an injured person or a dead person who was actually injured by the IFP ...

ADV DE JAGER: Sir, no, I don't want to hear, but you agreed that you have lied, and today you have come to tell the truth now? Is that correct?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And have you told us the whole truth today or what is the position?

MR SIMA: What I am explaining is what I have done, and that is what I know.

MR MATJELE: Mr Sima, I would like to put it to you that what you are saying to this hearing, does not reflect a full disclosure of what happened at the incident, in that part of what you said in court, I am saying that part of what you said in court, was true, that the deceased was attacked by some other people, other than you? Isn't that true?

MR SIMA: It is not the truth.

MR MATJELE: You were convicted by the Court which was able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that you were the cause of the deceased's death?

CHAIRPERSON: I think I would just like to interrupt you, you might not have had experience in appearing before this Committee, but it is not unusual for people to come before this Committee and give us a version when at the trial they had alibis and denied that they had any participation in the commission of the offence.

They are now coming here and making a full disclosure. It does not pay very much, it is not really particularly worthwhile to point out contradictions between evidence given at the trial and the evidence now. The real question is whether he is making a full disclosure now or not, on material points, not on side issues. Do you understand?

MR MATJELE: I understand thank you Mr Chair, but however, the point which I am trying to highlight, Mr Chair, is that the evidence which was in court, which is the evidence which my clients are stating, even today, is still standing and the evidence which the applicant is stating, is different in many aspects, although what he had said at trial, confirms to some extent what our clients, had said.

CHAIRPERSON: Part of his story may be true?

MR MATJELE: That is that he was not alone, he was with other people when they attacked, when they all attacked the deceased. He was not alone, and even those wounds were not inflicted by him alone, they were inflicted by many of the people who were having knives as well, together with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. All right. What is the next point that you want to make?

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could put your client's version to him, and he could agree or disagree.

CHAIRPERSON: Were your clients present in the shop at that time, when the deceased was stabbed?

MR MATJELE: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Were your clients present in the shop at the time when the deceased was stabbed?

MR MATJELE: I am not very well aware of that, but my understanding is that they followed to the incident, although I am not very sure as to whether they were inside the store, but there were many people surrounding him inside the store as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and where your clients saw many people stabbing the deceased?

MR MATJELE: My clients saw many people stabbing the deceased, even from the very instance when he was, when the deceased was first attacked, they came being a number of people, actually according to the evidence of the daughter, who was then 15 years, who saw her father being killed, the applicant, he first came alone, saw the deceased and he went and called these other people from the tavern, one by one, until they were a group of people, and they all came with knives.

That is when the father started defending himself with an umbrella.

CHAIRPERSON: Just stop there. I want you to listen carefully, it is said that you were not alone when the attack on the deceased commenced, that you had gathered friends who were accompanying you right from the outset of the attack, is that correct?

MR SIMA: That is not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: And that when the deceased ran into the car, the taxi, you were not alone when you threw stones, there were others milling around, who were your companions or comrades, surrounding the car at that time, is that not correct?

MR SIMA: That is not the truth. As there were some other people inside the taxi, then you couldn't throw stones at those, to the taxi, because there were other people who were already inside the taxi.

CHAIRPERSON: That doesn't mean that there were not other people outside the taxi with you, the question is that there were others with you when the taxi was attacked? You say there was nobody with you at that time?

MR SIMA: No, that is not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: And when the deceased ran into the shop, there was a lot of people that ran with you behind the deceased, into the shop? Is that not true?

MR SIMA: That is not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: And while you were stabbing the deceased in the shop, nobody else was engaged in stabbing the deceased, is that the position?

MR SIMA: Inside the shop, I cannot say whether there are people or the others, because I left him inside the store, and then I went out.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, we are not talking about, just be careful, we are talking about people who were associated with you. When you went into the shop, you ran after the deceased, you were not alone, there were others, of your friends, who ran into the shop with you, is that not correct?

MR SIMA: That is not the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: So while you were stabbing the deceased, was there nobody with you stabbing the deceased?

MR SIMA: I didn't see anyone.

CHAIRPERSON: So you stabbed the deceased and when you were satisfied that he was dead, then you left him?

MR SIMA: I left him while he was laying down.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, why did you leave him?

MR SIMA: I realised that he couldn't do anything.

CHAIRPERSON: And up to the time you left him, you saw nobody else stabbing him?

MR SIMA: There was no one, I didn't see anyone.

CHAIRPERSON: All right. We have covered that ground, we know your version, and now you know his version.

MR MATJELE: Your Worship, Mr Chairman, I think I am already finished?

CHAIRPERSON: Are there anything material still, of importance, but avoid going around on side issues, get to the material points if you haven't already covered them.

MR MATJELE: Yes, basically my point is that there is no full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: You will address us on that when the time comes.

MR MATJELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, when you say there was no full disclosure, what is it that he hasn't disclosed, that there were others who had been involved in the attack?

MR MATJELE: That is my point Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR MATJELE: That is my point.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the point, is there anything else.

MR MATJELE: That he is trying to shield and protect some other people, some of his friends.

CHAIRPERSON: To that extent you say there was non-disclosure, not a full disclosure?

MR MATJELE: Yes, there was no full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other point on which he has not made a disclosure?

MR MATJELE: Other points Your Worship, I think it is generally contradictions which just simply imply that his version is not probable.

CHAIRPERSON: You can address us when the time comes, on that. Ms Patel, do you have any questions? Have you finished?

MR MATJELE: I have finished.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MATJELE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are there any questions that you would like to ask the applicant?

MS PATEL: I will be very brief Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you. I understand that Mr Matjele is appearing for the victims, but just my cursory reading of the judgement and the evidence that was tendered at the trial, there was no evidence that was led, or your evidence that you have given now, in terms of you having had a discussion with the deceased before the fight had ensued.

Both or the State witnesses at that stage, said that you had come up directly to the deceased and stabbed him, that there wasn't a discussion that took place before that, what is your comment on that?

MR SIMA: What I said in court, it was not the truth, because I was trying to protect myself in whichever way, as well as my family and so that it doesn't appear that I was a killer, although I knew that I did kill him.

I do accept that what I said, it wasn't the truth.

MS PATEL: You have also stated in your application form, under the question as to who had authorised this incident, you state the community and then you go on to explain further, maybe I can just refresh your memory for you, you stated that these people did not belong to our area.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us where you are reading from?

MS PATEL: Sorry, page 5 Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you, paragraph?

MS PATEL: 11(a) and (b).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: Okay, you have stated that you were authorised by the community and you go on further to state that these people did not belong to our area, so that they did not know when to kill, but he was the one showing them the targets. That is why the community decided that he must die.

Do you want to explain or would you like to explain why you stated that the community had decided that he must die?

Why did you put that in your application, you have given us no evidence as to that here today?

MR SIMA: As I have indicated, after running away and meeting at Masnenge, we were with the comrades, the community that I am referring to, are the comrades that I was with, discussing about the thing that we should do in the situation that was facing us.

MS PATEL: But why did you not then state the comrades and not the community?

MR SIMA: The people that I live around, I consider them as the community, and those were the comrades.

MS PATEL: Okay. Then on page 4 Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What about clearing up what you have read in paragraph 11(b)?

MR MATJELE: I don't know if I can ask any question, Mr Chair, just a follow up?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR MATJELE: All right.

MS PATEL: Will you grant me a moment, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MR SAMUEL: If I may come in at this stage Honourable Chairperson ...

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 11(b) you have drawn his attention to that, is there no question you wish to put to him on the contents of that paragraph?

MS PATEL: I was going to link that Honourable Chairperson, to what he stated in terms of his justification on page 4 as well. I thought perhaps he could answer it in one, where he states that money was being taken from the IFP. Does that relate to the decision that the community had taken, or the comrades had taken, as he states?

ADV DE JAGER: What he refers to and that is why I brought it in earlier, about the pointing out of targets, and perhaps that could be cleared up.

I don't know why he indicated here that there was a pointing out of targets and nothing was said about it in evidence today.

MS PATEL: You stated here in your application, just to bring you back to what is happening, that the reason why the community and as you have now explained to us, the community are the comrades that you were with, that they decided that the deceased must die, because he was showing, or he was pointing out targets, whereas you didn't mention that earlier, you didn't say that that was part of the discussion.

In fact the reason that you say or you have given to us that you had gone to see Mr Mbele, was because negotiations had broken down or that they had refused to negotiate? What is the position?

MR SIMA: With regards to that, what I can say is that yes, he used to go house to house, but that is not the reason that actually was the final reason for me to attack him.

What was more important and what he did, is that he followed me and followed my parents, and thereafter, and told my parents that they should fetch their son, either if they are not bringing the son back, they actually should follow him, that is myself.

That is the main reason. And that the deceased was actually pointing the targets, yes, that was annoying actually, but that was not the most important one. Not that because of that, he should be attacked.

MS PATEL: So your reason at the end of the day for going to the deceased, was personal, it had nothing to do with any decision that you would have us believe that the community or comrades as you called them, had made or had given?

MR SIMA: The reason and the motive started in the meeting that because he has done this, what should be done? Because what he did, going house to house, was doing something that he can actually go and do deeds there, and we didn't have assurance that the houses that he had gone to, we would actually establish what he was doing.

What we considered is that the people that have actually run away, are the ones that we should actually help. Then we sat down and discussed that we as people, who have actually run away, we should sit down and discuss and see what to do next, then have the means or make some means of solving such a situation.

CHAIRPERSON: To put it very, very briefly, may I ask you whether there is any truth in your statement here that the community decided that he must die? That is what you said here in paragraph 11(b) of your application, did the community decide that he must die?

MR SIMA: The aim or the motive was to negotiate and depending on the outcome of the negotiations, that if there is a need for us to protect ourselves, then we should, but necessarily that he should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: You are using a lot of words when you say to protect ourselves, when you say that. You were driven out, you were in Margate, you and your comrades, this man is in Port Shepstone.

You want to go back to Port Shepstone, you decide you must take steps to try and get to Port Shepstone. You said that you must negotiate with this man so that you can go back to Port Shepstone, but he wasn't prepared to negotiate, is that correct?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now then you say that is why the community decided that he must die? Did the community decide that he must die?

MR SIMA: Well, I can say that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have said it here, but up to now in your evidence, you hadn't, you see. Do you understand?

MR SIMA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

ADV DE JAGER: And did they order you to go and kill him?

MR SIMA: Yes, it was my work to go and negotiate with him as a person who has actually done this, and directed that thing to me.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, please. The community ordered you to negotiate with him, is that right?

MR SIMA: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And did they tell you that if you don't succeed in negotiating with him, you must kill him?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And who else was to help you in the killing of this man?

MR SIMA: What I was supposed to do, I was supposed to negotiate with him, not with the aim of killing him.

He was supposed to die if he was not in line with what I was about to say to him, or what I was saying to him.

CHAIRPERSON: He was supposed to die at your hands?

MR SIMA: If there was a need.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else you wish to raise?

MS PATEL: There is just one further point also. You have stated in your application, or let me ask you this, was Mr Mbele ever involved in taking money from people as an IFP member or supporter?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Is this something that you have just remembered now?

MR SIMA: No, but what you are saying, I remember and that is what I know.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't he collecting money to get funds in support of the party, like all party organisers or supporters were doing at the time for the election?

MR SIMA: The money that was collected was for the people to get cards.

ADV DE JAGER: To get their membership cards?

MR SIMA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So it was actually membership fees that he was collecting?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, just clarity on one aspect. On a question from the Honourable Committee members to the applicant at some stage, he said that he the umbrella was in fact a short umbrella. I just want him to clarify, in his evidence in chief, he had stated that the umbrella was in fact long and he stated specifically that from his behaviour it was not possible to get closer to the deceased and upon clarifying that, he stated that it was a long umbrella. Would he like to comment on that?

MR SIMA: To explain that, when you compare the Okapi with the umbrella, you cannot actually reach that person when you compare the umbrella and the Okapi.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the question is not that, the question is whether it was a long umbrella or a short umbrella, that is the question.

MR SIMA: Short one.

MS PATEL: Then why did you use the length of the umbrella as the reason for you not being able to get closer to the deceased at the initial stage, before he had even gone to the taxi, if you are now saying it is a short umbrella?

MR SIMA: It is because I realised that because he is holding the umbrella, it is actually distracting me, I cannot reach him.

I was actually supposed to go back a bit, and try some other means of distracting him.

MS PATEL: It is not a reasonable explanation, but leave that as it may, we will leave that for argument.

Then one final point, Honourable Chairperson, on page 3 you stated that Mr Mbele, he used to enter house to house, telling people to join the Inkatha, then when he came home, he told me to come and I explained that I am ANC.

They then attacked me at night because of that. What is this attack about, we haven't had any details of this attack from you? When did it occur and who attacked you, was it that same night that Mr Mbele had tried to recruit you?

MR SIMA: It wasn't the same day, it wasn't the same day when he told me to join the IFP. The attack I am referring to, I did not see the people who actually attacked me, because it was at night.

MS PATEL: I am sorry, did you say it was the same night?

INTERPRETER: No, it was not the same night and he doesn't know the people who actually attacked him, it was on the other night.

MS PATEL: So you can't say whether this was related to Mr Mbele's visit to you or not, because you can't identify who it was, not so?

MR SIMA: I can, because on his arrival, telling me what he was telling me, and I refused, after some few days and then I was attacked, I actually concluded that he is actually involved or he is part of this, because of the response I gave him.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Sima, I have asked you whether you had been attacked at your house, and you said no. The attack on your house was only the night after he had been killed? I specifically asked you whether it was before you killed him or after you killed him, and you told us it was the night after you had killed him.

I was referring, I had this in mind when I asked you.

MR SIMA: To rectify that, yes, I was attacked thereafter, but before then, before I could actually attack him, there was actually an attack on me, while he was still alive.

ADV DE JAGER: Where was this attack, at Margate or at Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: Let me actually rectify the Margate and the Port Shepstone incidents.

ADV DE JAGER: Where was the attack on you?

MR SIMA: In the farm, in the rural area.

ADV DE JAGER: Where, at Port Shepstone or at Margate?

MR SIMA: Margate.

ADV DE JAGER: After you fled your home?

MR SIMA: He arrived, told me what he was telling me and I responded that I can't do what he was telling me to do, then I went to another and he went to another comrade.

Thereafter the comrade left and I realised that this comrade did not come back. Then I was cautious and checking what is happening. Thereafter, after some few days, people came to attack me. Thereafter I left for Margate.

ADV SIGODI: But the question was, where did this attack take place?

MR SIMA: Margate.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

LU PATRICK SIMA: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, there is just one question that flowed from his response to the last question, and that is that the, Mr Sima, you confirmed that the attack had in fact taken place at Margate.

MR SIMA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Okay. Then I need some clarity please, you stated in your evidence in chief, that after you had fled to Margate and your mother had come there with all her belongings, she had stated to you that Mr Mbele had in fact visited her home and said that he was looking for you and had sent her and had told her that she must come and find you and bring you back to the area. That is so, isn't it?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Then my question to you is, if you are saying that the attack that took place on you, was as a result of your having refused Mr Mbele's request that you join the IFP, how would Mr Mbele have known where you were, if he in fact sent your mother to look for you?

MR SIMA: He knew that I was in the Margate area, but he did not know the specific area or the specific place in which I resided.

MS PATEL: Then explain why you think that the people who attacked you, was sent by Mr Mbele if he wasn't sure where you were?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that he was in a group that was attacked,he and some comrades. Am I not right, am I under the wrong impression that that is how the attack took place when he was in a group of chaps and that he wasn't singled out by himself?

Perhaps you can clear that up.

MS PATEL: Mr Sima, when you were attacked, were you alone?

MR SIMA: We were attacked in a house, and we were many.

MS PATEL: And this house was in Margate?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MS PATEL: And you are saying that these attackers were sent by Mr Mbele?

CHAIRPERSON: That is the conclusion that he draws.

MS PATEL: If he confirms that Honourable Chairperson, what I am seeking clarity on is if Mr Mbele then knew of his specific location, where would the need have been for him to approach the applicant's mother for details as to where the applicant himself was? He said specifically when the mother had come to him, after she had fled, that Mr Mbele had said to her, where is your son, you must bring him back.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he knew the son, he may very well have known that the son was in Margate, not particularly at which particular address and that is why he tells the mother go back and tell your son, bring him back to Port Shepstone.

This attack that took place, was an attack by a group of chaps, presumably Inkatha chaps who may have known where the comrades hang out, in which particular house.

They may not have known whether he was one of them or not, he happened to be there when that attack took place. Is that not a possibility?

MS PATEL: It is a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the picture, that is the inference that I draw from the vague evidence that has been given.

MS PATEL: Then all I seek clarity on is why did the applicant draw the conclusion that Mr Mbele had sent the parties who had attacked the house, and that it wasn't just a general IFP attack on the house, because his evidence was clear that it was Mr Mbele who had sent these people?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just clear that up. Do you understand that question? You have told us that Mr Mbele was responsible for sending people that carried out the attack on you and your comrades.

Why do you say that it was Mr Mbele who sent them?

MR SIMA: Because he had been the person who had approached me, and with whom we had a discussion and differed. I subsequently heard that my name had been mentioned among people who should be targeted. When this attack took place, I did not hesitate, it was obvious to me that he was also involved.

MS PATEL: Then just one final, did your mother come to Margate after this attack had taken place or before?

MR SIMA: Yes.

MS PATEL: No?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes what?

MS PATEL: Yes, that is what I want. The question Mr Sima, if I can repeat it for you is, did your mother come to Margate after this attack or before this attack?

MR SIMA: She arrived after we had been attacked.

MS PATEL: Did you explain to her that you didn't understand why Mr Mbele was looking for you because he had already sent people to attack you?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say this to his mother, is that the question?

MS PATEL: I am asking why he didn't ask his mother ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of that?

MS PATEL: The point being Honourable Chairperson, that this applicant would have us believe that - the inference to be drawn from why his mother had fled, was that Mr Mbele was in fact the person who had not only driven her out of the area, but had sent her out to come and look for the applicant.

If he had already been attacked prior to the mother coming into the area, then it makes no sense?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the difficulty, the mother did arrive there, she did arrive because she was told by Mbele to fetch your son, bring your son back.

MS PATEL: The difficulty is Honourable Chairperson, that if the applicant believed that he was attacked at a stage prior to his mother arriving there, and that the perpetrator was Mr Mbele, then why would Mr Mbele have gone to the mother subsequent to the attack, to find out the whereabouts of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: How would one have known why Mr Mbele thought the way he did, unless you are trying to suggest to the witness that this did not occur?

MS PATEL: That is what I am trying to ascertain Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He can only say what he knows, isn't it? How Mr Mbele's mind worked in the matter and so on, is something which he would be unqualified to talk about?

The fact of the matter is that if he says that he was attacked whilst he was with a group of comrades in a house, by people who believed were sent by Mbele, there is nothing to contradict that. You have nothing to contradict that.

You don't doubt it, because there is no evidence for you to doubt it, isn't that so? Then some short while after that, his mother arrives there, you cant doubt that, that is a fact, isn't it?

MS PATEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And if his mother told him that look here, Mbele said that we should come back to Port Shepstone, that is what he says. There must be some truth in that too, isn't that, it is probable, isn't it?

So, now if that is so, if those facts are so, then why Mr Mbele should ask his mother to do this, that or the other, is not really material. How Mr Mbele's mind works in the matter, unless your purpose of your question is to throw doubt on these facts that you say, you agreed it happened?

MS PATEL: That is indeed so Honourable Chairperson, I find it improbable that somebody would send out a group of people to attack a particular person and subsequent, at a specific house, and subsequent to that, then approach somebody else to go and look for the person whom he has already sent parties to attack?

CHAIRPERSON: It isn't that way, he doesn't send his mother specifically. The parents leave the area to come to Margate and they bring a message to him by Mbele. Mr Mbele says that you should come back to Port Shepstone.

MS PATEL: But the evidence went further than that, the evidence was that the mother had said that Mr Mbele had come there to look for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: The words, you know, Mbele goes to his mother and say now, where is your son. He may very well have known where the son was, in Margate, but that is his way of talking perhaps? Where is your son, I want you to go and fetch him and bring him back.

Broadly speaking, that is the kind of thing that might have happened. The purpose of your question is that you, if you think that is improbable, then you must tell me what is improbable. Is it improbable that Mbele told his mother that she must fetch him, is that what you think is improbable?

MS PATEL: What I find improbable is that somebody would, despite knowing where the person is, then still go out and look for that person. That is the improbability, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mbele may not know precisely where this man was living, he sends out his cohorts, his cohorts make enquiries, they think, they find a group of comrades at a particular place, they carry out this attack, Mbele knows now that this chap is somewhere, that night he was at a particular house with comrades, not necessarily living in that house?

Mbele sends his mother, or his mother, parents leave the house, Mbele tells them, look here, you are going, you better bring your son back. In all this, is it very relevant and if so, what is deciduous in probability in all this? If it didn't happen, then you must say well, look you know, what you are saying, didn't happen.

I don't understand whether you are trying to contend that this didn't happen. He can't fathom how Mr Mbele's mind works, or how he talks, or how he thinks, but what was improbable?

MR MATJELE: Mr Chair, if I may come in right there, may I just ask this question, maybe it will ..

CHAIRPERSON: If it clears up this problem.

MR MATJELE: Yes, I believe that it is somehow interlinked with this, to prove that it is improbable, the whole version of the applicant in this aspect.

Mr Sima, I would like to know in your version before this hearing, you mentioned that the whole of your family fled, and came to Margate, and in your affidavit you only mentioned that only your mother came to you to tell you that, can you tell this hearing which is the truth among the two, if ever that incident ever took place at all?

MR SIMA: Let me put it this way, there are three children in my home, I have a brother and a sister, and I fled to my brother's house.

When Mbele arrived at home, he found my sister and my mother and it is to these people whom he gave that instruction, and they are the people who came to town and told me about it.

MR MATJELE: Is there any reason why you did not find it necessary to state them in your affidavit?

MR SIMA: I had a lot on my mind at the time, when I wrote the statement, that is why I did not put it clearly there in the affidavit.

MR MATJELE: And did you also have a lot on your mind when you made your application as well, that you did not have to state that?

CHAIRPERSON: This is a minor detail really, let's just move on to the major issues. Ms Patel, are there any other great improbabilities in the story that you wish to challenge? If that is so, tell me what it is that is so improbable?

You think that his mother did not come there, or you think that the attack on him, didn't take place, (indistinct) and have no reason to doubt that the attack took place by a group of people, and if you accept that his mother did come there and tell him that Mbele came, if you accept that, those are the main issues?

How Mbele requested it and what he said, might be side issues, the fact of the matter is that they did come, isn't it?

MS PATEL: Well, if the Honourable Chair feels that it is immaterial to the issues at large, then I will leave it there?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I don't and I want you to tell me if you think that it is material, please tell me what it is. I am as keen to get at the true picture as everybody else is, I am not here to silence you.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, this applicant is stating that as part of his major motivation in going to kill the deceased or in the incident which eventually led to the death of the deceased, is that his mother was in fact thrown out of the house and that she had fled.

But he goes further than that, he says that his mother was sent to come and fetch him. I am saying that it is improbable that his mother would have been sent to fetch him, if in fact the applicant believes that Mr Mbele had already sent somebody to attack him, meaning that Mr Mbele already knew the whereabouts of the applicant himself.

CHAIRPERSON: If Mbele knew the whereabouts of the applicant, Mbele was in no way to get him back, he couldn't forcibly bring him back. So he says, tell your son to come back, bring him back in the hope that the mother will persuade the son to come back.

MS PATEL: The evidence is however that Mr Mbele wielded some power and that he was in a position to send people to attack a house where ANC comrades had been staying. In fact, if I recollect correctly, the applicant's evidence is that five people were killed at that house.

It is not, you know, if that is the case, if Mr Mbele was in fact a man of that power, why send the mother thereafter?

CHAIRPERSON: All right, do I gather from that that his mother did not come there to call him, is that it?

MS PATEL: It is a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, is that the improbability that you are talking about?

MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to him then, Mbele didn't send your mother to fetch you or your mother never came to Margate from Port Shepstone and left her house, isn't that a direct way of putting the question to him?

MS PATEL: All right Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me assist you. When your mother and your sister came from Port Shepstone to Margate, I understood you to say they brought their belongings with them, they vacated the house to come and live in Margate, is that correct?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they come there to live with you or did they come there to take you back to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: It was obvious that they had come to stay, because I would have not agreed to go back with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it then when your mother came there with her belongings, that she conveyed to you that among the things that happened was that Mbele told her that she must try and get you to come back to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: It was at that time that she told me all that.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what your mother told you?

MR SIMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right. If that assists in clearing up the picture, then we may carry on.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage, your mother came with her belongings, to say in Margate, she didn't intend to go back to Port Shepstone?

MR SIMA: She did not intend to go back.

ADV DE JAGER: So she didn't come to fetch you, she came to stay with you?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MR SIMA: In actual fact, she had come to relay that message because, but because I was not prepared to go back, she knew that she has to stay because she had been told that if she returns alone, she would be in danger.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, now can you then just make it clear to us, you went you say, to negotiate with Mr Mbele on that day, the fatal day, is that correct?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't take any of your comrades with you?

MR SIMA: I did not take them with me, but when they left, they were aware that I was going to speak to him.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And what did they tell you to negotiate with him? What should you ask him to do?

MR SIMA: It was important to discuss the issue of negotiations because we had fled our homes and all our families were now staying in Margate. We were going to discuss the issue of how we could get ourselves back to Port Shepstone.

ADV DE JAGER: But now your mother have come a week before, or whenever, and said Mr Mbele invited you to go back to Port Shepstone, but you wouldn't go?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, but you wanted to go back and you wanted to negotiate the very same thing that he have asked you to do?

MR SIMA: Yes, my intention was to discuss our return, but not on the terms that we were going to join the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, did you in fact discuss your intention to return with him?

MR SIMA: We did not discuss it much, because he was not prepared to listen to me.

ADV DE JAGER: And when he wasn't prepared to listen to you, you decided to kill him, isn't that so?

MR SIMA: Prior to that, he started insulting me, and when I responded to those insults, he started becoming aggressive, he wanted to fight me. That was the reason why I attacked him.

ADV DE JAGER: So you attacked him because he started to attack you, is that the reason now?

MR SIMA: Yes, it was an act of self defence.

ADV DE JAGER: How did he attack you, did he stab you, did he throw you with a stone, what did he do?

MR SIMA: He used that same umbrella that he tried to attack me with.

ADV DE JAGER: And you were afraid that he would kill you?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And so you defended yourself?

MR SIMA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So there was no political motive, why you killed him, it was in self defence?

MR SIMA: With regards to the decision that had already been taken by the comrades, that is we were first going to attempt negotiating with him, and if that failed, we would defend ourselves in any way we could.

ADV DE JAGER: Not defend yourself, attack him in any way you could, isn't that the truth?

MR SIMA: It was self defence.

ADV DE JAGER: No, it can't be self defence if you chase a man running away, taking shelter in a taxi, or taking shelter in a cafe, that couldn't be self defence?

MR SIMA: His fleeing into the taxi and thereafter into the cafe, was indicative that he wanted to fight, and because of that impression, I also had to decide how to defend myself.

ADV DE JAGER: A person fleeing, running away, he is fleeing, he's got no intention to fight or to kill you.

MR SIMA: When he took out that umbrella, and tried to attack me, I regarded that as an act of aggression.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get this straight, let's just talk about this business called self defence. I don't know where you heard this phrase.

You stabbed him, he ran away from you, went into the car, you threw a stone, you broke the window of the car, and he ran away from the car and he ran into the shop. Where does the self defence come in at that stage? What were you defending yourself, when he was running away from you? You already had a knife which you used on him, so how were you defending yourself when he ran away?

MR SIMA: I had intended to discuss things with him, and then he took out that umbrella.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I am talking about the stage after he took he umbrella, and you stabbed him. Do you understand, he runs into the taxi, you threw stones at him, he runs away from you, so where is the self defence?

ADV DE JAGER: And even leaving the umbrella in the taxi, so he didn't have the umbrella then, he couldn't threaten you with the umbrella afterwards?

MR SIMA: I did not see if he left the umbrella in the taxi, but all I can say is that I attacked him because he was not prepared to negotiate with me, and I attacked him because I wanted to protect my right to be able to go back home.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about something else, we are talking about - just to get this thing quite clear, when a man runs away from you, there is no need for you to run after him. You have already stabbed him once, why did you run after him again?

The only explanation is because you had made up your mind at that stage, that you were going to kill him? If that is so, then that is not self defence?

MR SIMA: I explained before that he did not approach me in a respectful manner, he did not recognise that I also had a right to hold a different opinion, and that is why I followed him, I wanted to teach him a lesson that if a person wants to discuss matters with you, you should be prepared to do so, not be aggressive.

ADV DE JAGER: You would agree with me, there is no method or there is no reason to try and teach a lesson to a corpse, because he can't live out the lesson?

It wouldn't help teaching somebody and killing him, because he can't use the thing that you have taught him?

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, what lesson did you teach him?

MR SIMA: It was that a person should be able to listen, it was not my intention to kill him, but I wanted to teach him a lesson that he should be able to listen.

ADV DE JAGER: So you stabbed him 19 times?

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, what lesson did you teach him, did he learn a lesson from you?

MR SIMA: Although I cannot remember just how many times I stabbed him, it could have been about 13, but I am not sure that I stabbed him 19 times.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that any amount of explanation can't satisfy us about your teaching him a lesson.

ADV SIGODI: Can I just put it this way, if the deceased had not been aggressive, would you have stabbed him?

MR SIMA: No, there would have been no reason for that.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, you stabbed him because he was aggressive?

MR SIMA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: So what political objective did you seek to achieve by stabbing him?

MR SIMA: The aim was because he could identify targets, and also for the reason that he was not prepared to listen to a differing opinion, it was proper that I should attack him.

ADV SIGODI: No, no, you are saying that you attacked him or you stabbed him, because he was aggressive and you saw him getting something out, a weapon out, which you had not yet identified at the time. Now you stabbed him because he was aggressive?

My question to you is, what political objective did you seek to achieve?

MR SIMA: The aim was to enable the people who had fled, to return home without any fear.

ADV SIGODI: So would you have achieved that without stabbing him? Do you think it was possible to achieve that without stabbing him?

MR SIMA: What was shown to me, it was apparent that that was not possible.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR SAMUEL: No re-examination Mr Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you calling any other witnesses?

MR SAMUEL: If the matter of the mother going to Margate has been clarified, I don't need to call any more witnesses, but if we need any clarity on whether the mother went to Margate or not, I have the mother in attendance Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I can't tell you how to ...

MR SAMUEL: In that case Your Worship ...

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I am concerned, do you want to hear the mother, do you think it is relevant for the mother to come and say she went to Margate? I don't think it is necessary, do you?

ADV DE JAGER: What is the purpose of calling the mother?

MR SAMUEL: There was some, a question of an improbability as to whether the mother had been to Margate or not, and a direct question was put, or a submission was put to the applicant that the mother never went to Margate.

If that is going to create an inconsistency in his evidence, we call the mother.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you should decide on that, I don't think he was very clear about it, but it is for you to decide.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get this clear, Ms Patel are you going to contend that his mother never went to Margate?

MS PATEL: No, that was never my contention Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

MR SAMUEL: I have no further witness.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what was a contention was that the mother wasn't sent there by Mr Mbele, in order to get him back.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the mother packed up her belongings and went there because she felt unsafe or unhappy.

MR SAMUEL: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: She goes there and joins him and tells him Mbele says that you should return to Port Shepstone.

MR SAMUEL: I have no problem with that Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This is how I understand it. Mr Matjele, do you have any witnesses?

MR MATJELE: Yes Mr Chairman, I am going to call the deceased's wife, Ms Betwina Mbele.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you call her.

BETWINA MBELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may sit down. Yes, Mr Matjele.

EXAMINATION BY MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Mbele, can you tell the hearing what is your relation with the deceased in this matter?

MS MBELE: My husband.

MR MATJELE: And Ma'am, I would like to know, according to you what was, do you remember the incident which led to your husband's death?

MS MBELE: Yes, I do remember.

MR MATJELE: Were you there when your husband passed away?

MS MBELE: Yes, I was there.

MR MATJELE: Did you know the person who killed your husband, or the people who killed your husband?

MS MBELE: Yes, the others, there is a tavern, a place where they drink, the person went there to call them, and then that person showed them my husband, and that person went and that person was singing slogans and my husband was quiet, because he was from work, and then calling people and then showing them to him, and then he went back for several times.

On the third time, all three of them went to him straight without him uttering a single word and then this boy, stabbed him with a knife. Then he jumped, because he was carrying an umbrella and then he went to a kombi and then thereafter, actually they threw stones at the kombi and the kombi didn't work thereafter and then used the umbrella and all of them were actually chasing ...

CHAIRPERSON: Will you just, I am sorry, just tell her that she has to talk slowly because we have to take down what she is saying, please.

Start at some place, because it hasn't been possible for us to take down what she has been saying.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you seen the applicant on that day? Can you please tell us what the applicant did, what you saw him doing?

INTERPRETER: Sorry, she just answered the question, let me just get the answer from her.

MS MBELE: She says that he doesn't tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you tell us what the truth was.

MS MBELE: The truth is that he wasn't killing himself, he did call the others to help him. He would not hit him if he was alone.

I would like him to say those people that he was actually calling, thereafter I can actually accept the application and understand in which way is he asking for forgiveness.

MR MATJELE: How far were you Ms Mbele, from the deceased before they attacked him?

MS MBELE: I was nearby, I wasn't that far. I wasn't far.

MR MATJELE: When they attacked him, was it the applicant alone? Was it the applicant alone? I want you to listen first?

MS MBELE: He wasn't alone, there were a lot of people, but he is the one who did call them first.

He showed them him, and then he went back and for the second time, he actually showed them, him. Thereafter he is the one who started to stab him. Thereafter stabbing, my husband then flew away to the kombi and then in the kombi, they used stones, bricks and he actually came out, running away now.

After that, he tried to protect himself with an umbrella and still, they continued to chase him until he reached the cafe.

ADV DE JAGER: Please, it is your responsibility, we don't want to interrupt, but please lead your client so that she could speak slowly and control your witness.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chair. I am trying to do that. Ma'am, I am going to request you to only respond to the questions that I ask you and not go further, okay, thank you.

Ma'am, can you tell me, when they came to attack your husband, how many were they, can you presume the number maybe?

MS MBELE: They were about ten.

MR MATJELE: So, would it be correct for us to presume that what the applicant says in essence, that he was alone, is incorrect? Will I be correct if I say that?

MS MBELE: That is not the truth.

MR MATJELE: Ma'am, can you tell us after they attacked him from the first instance, and he took out the umbrella, where did he go to as you observed, and what were you doing at that point in time?

MS MBELE: He ran to the cafe, inside the store, and they were actually chasing them and throwing stones and bricks at him.

MR MATJELE: And what was he doing as they were doing that?

MS MBELE: He was screaming, calling the police. As they were busy doing that, I am actually screaming and calling the police to come quickly, and then the police came, but on their arrival, he was already dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Just pause there, did you yourself, go into the shop or the tearoom?

MS MBELE: Yes, I actually came and arrived exactly where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, were they still attacking him or had they stopped?

MS MBELE: They were not attacking him by then. I was actually just nearby them, when they actually left him, then I was there and remained with him, by myself.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you got into the tearoom, his attackers had already left him?

MS MBELE: Actually they were, on my arrival, they were on their way out, because I am screaming and shouting, calling the police, they were actually then, it was then that they were actually leaving him.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't see any of them actually attacking your husband in the tearoom?

MS MBELE: There was a white person and a girl.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no my question is, you did not see, you did not see them actually attacking your husband in the tearoom?

MS MBELE: No, I was behind, but on my arrival, I was behind them, so I did not see them exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR MATJELE: So Ma'am, how did you get to know that inside the tearoom, they were stabbing him?

MS MBELE: Even on the way, when he was running towards the cafe, they were stabbing him, and on my arrival, I actually realised that he had a lot of wounds, stab wounds, they were stabbing him, and it wasn't the only person. A lot of them were stabbing him, because even in the kombi, all of them carried knives.

They still stabbing him with the very same knives, chasing him, using those knives.

MR MATJELE: Thank you. So according to you, would you say that these people who were attacking your husband, it looked as if it was something that they had planned according to your observation on the day in question as they all came, carrying arms?

MS MBELE: I saw them when they were already carrying their knives. I wouldn't have known that he was the one who was on the discussion, he was from work, he was only carrying the umbrella. I wouldn't know whether those people who actually planned this, because I only saw this happening.

MR MATJELE: Ma'am, when they first approached the deceased, did the applicant in any way go to the deceased and have some talk with him?

MS MBELE: No, he did not start any conversation, there was no discussion whatsoever. He actually came there and started being so aggressive and calling all the other people and then they all attacked. There was no discussion or whatsoever when they were doing this attack.

He just directly went to him.

MR MATJELE: Would I be understanding you to be pointing out that what the applicant was telling this hearing, that he tried to negotiate with the deceased, and the deceased did not listen, that is false?

MS MBELE: Yes.

MR MATJELE: And if I may ask, when you were screaming, they could hear you, could they or not?

MS MBELE: I wouldn't know, but the police did hear me and they came.

Whether they heard, because they were actually toyi-toying, I wouldn't know whether they heard me, because they were making a noise, but the police did hear me.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that really material as to whether they heard her scream or not? She obviously must have screamed.

MR MATJELE: According to you Ma'am, and knowing the applicant, he having grown next to you in your place, was he a person who was respectful even to the deceased or yourself?

MS MBELE: Yes, I knew him, but I wouldn't know what position he had in the ANC, because we were in the same area.

MR MATJELE: My question is did he respect you or did he respect the deceased?

MS MBELE: I don't remember him respecting and I don't remember him respecting my husband, because we had never had any relation whatsoever with him, or any business.

MR MATJELE: Ma'am, having heard all that the applicant said in his application for this amnesty, according to you, do you feel that he is remorseful about his actions?

MS MBELE: Well, I don't see that if he doesn't say the, if he doesn't articulate the names of the people who were with him when he was killing my husband.

MR MATJELE: So you feel that there is a lot which he is still hiding, am I understanding you correctly?

MS MBELE: Yes, it is a lot. He is actually supposed to say that he did call so and so and so and so to help him to kill this man.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know any of the other people who helped him, killing your husband?

MS MBELE: It would be a lie, it was just dark in my eyes. I couldn't even see who exactly were, but he is the one who would actually explain to us who was he calling.

I did see that it was a lot of them, but it is just that when people do something to you, unexpectedly, your mind seems to weave away. I wouldn't be sober minded from that day until the day of the funeral.

ADV DE JAGER: How far from you, was your husband standing before he was attacked or while he was attacked?

MS MBELE: As far as that boy who is sitting down there.

CHAIRPERSON: Six paces? Would that be six paces?

ADV DE JAGER: Did your husband speak to him, to the applicant at all or said what are you doing, why are you calling people, or why are you attacking me?

MS MBELE: He was actually just articulating words that what are these boys doing to me, what are they doing to me.

He was just uttering the words, what are these boys doing and he was actually running away, going to the kombi and so on.

I didn't actually hear the boy asking him let's negotiate or do whatsoever, as he is saying. He is saying that he did try to negotiate, he did not try to negotiate with him. He is the person who came there with the friends, their knives already drew out, attacking him and he uttered the words, what are these boys doing, and thereafter the boy already had stabbed him, the applicant and they chased him, and he flew to the kombi, and subsequently into the shop and that was it.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I get some clarity about one or two things? You told us that you were six paces away when you saw your husband confronted by the applicant and his friends, is that right?

MS MBELE: Yes, it is the truth, I wasn't that far, I was nearby. I did see him.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they talking to each other when you first noticed?

MS MBELE: No, they were saying slogans and there was no negotiations.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear, just interpret.

INTERPRETER: They were saying slogans.

CHAIRPERSON: They were saying slogans?

INTERPRETER: Yes, and there was no negotiations or whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: They were just shouting slogans?

INTERPRETER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, before your husband was actually stabbed, at that stage, did you notice whether anybody had knives, and if so, how many of them?

MS MBELE: About five of them, others had stones, bricks, others had bricks, others had stones.

CHAIRPERSON: I asked you about knives, did anybody have knives?

MS MBELE: Others had knives.

CHAIRPERSON: How many?

MS MBELE: About five carried knives.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that is all. Yes, do carry on.

MR MATJELE: Ma'am, if I may ask, if the applicant is granted amnesty, would you feel that justice would have been done?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is irrelevant as to how she feels, you see.

MS MBELE: As far as I am concerned, it would be okay if he calls everybody else who was there, because if you are telling the truth and you are asking for amnesty, then you should explain everything.

We were around, then we should be satisfied and you shouldn't leave anything out, then I would accept it.

MR MATJELE: So in essence, you don't have any objection towards the applicant being granted amnesty, the only thing you feel you do not agree with, is the fact that he is not talking the truth. If he would talk the truth, you have no problem. You would really feel that he is remorseful, do I understand you to be saying that?

MS MBELE: Well, it will depend on the Committee that. If the Committee releases him, it will be okay. It will be good if he is actually released, if he tells the truth and reveal everything, then it is okay.

I ask that he tells the truth.

MR MATJELE: Who else was with you on the day in question, when he was attacked, when the deceased was attacked?

MS MBELE: It is my daughter, she is right here.

MR MATJELE: And how old was she by then?

MS MBELE: Approximately 15 years, it seems as though she was 15 although I cannot quite remember well.

MR MATJELE: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MATJELE

CHAIRPERSON: Any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Just one question, or a few questions relating to one aspect Your Honour.

Mama, you have been selling fruit and vegetables in this place, for quite a while I take it, for a number of years, could I be correct in saying that?

MS MBELE: Yes, it is the truth.

MR SAMUEL: Would I be correct in saying then that you would know, at least some of the children that were in the group that you allege, attacked your husband, besides the accused?

MS MBELE: On that day, they were just doing things hastily and moving, I couldn't actually recognise at that particular day. Everything happened hastily.

MR MATJELE: Mr Chair, I would like to interject at this moment. Basically I would be happy if my colleague clarifies his first question by saying that, when he says I suppose it is long that you have been selling. Does he imply even up until now, or it was long she had been selling vegetables, even until the incident took place? If that could be clarified, I would be very happy.

MR SAMUEL: We are talking about the incident, as at the date of the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words for a long time before the date of the incident. Yes, do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, could you or couldn't you identify any of the other children that were involved in this incident?

MS MBELE: I couldn't because when my husband got killed, I actually went to the police until I went home. I couldn't go back to the incident. I didn't see them and I did not recognise who they were, but I did see them.

Who they were, I cannot say.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, I want to put it to you that the applicant in fact, told this Commission the whole truth and he made full disclosure in that he also did not know these people, except to say that they were comrades, and possibly from Gamalakhe, can you deny that?

MS MBELE: What can cause me to deny that is that he is the one who was calling them, and come with them. I don't think that he can actually call the people that he did not know.

MR SAMUEL: Did you hear him calling them by name, or how did he call them Ma'am?

MS MBELE: He came with them, and did show them him, and then came, went away and came back with the others, and showed them, him.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, the applicant's version is that, before I put his version to you, Ma'am, could you tell this commission, if your husband came to speak to you, why was he standing at such a distance away from you?

ADV DE JAGER: She didn't say he came to speak to her. She said he was just coming from work?

MR SAMUEL: My apology. Ma'am, at the time when the applicant approached your husband, from which direction did he come, from the back of your husband or was he facing your husband at that stage?

MS MBELE: He was facing when he was actually saying, when they were saying the slogans. He was saying the slogans in front of him, and thereafter he went back, came back with two boys, came back and then he went away and he came back. He was just in front of him.

He is the only child that I know, because he grew up in front of me, in the neighbourhood.

MR SAMUEL: So initially there was just your husband and the applicant, initially, when you first saw them, you only saw the applicant and your husband together, before he went and brought out other people, am I correct?

MS MBELE: Yes, there were two of them, and then he went to call the others, and then subsequently called the others, and so on.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, that is the applicant's version, when he first approached your husband, his cousin was with him, another Sima, and that is when he had this conversation with your husband?

MR MATJELE: I would like to object to that Your Worship, I don't recall that happening.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether this gets us anywhere, because really, you've got your version, she has heard your version, she is being led in evidence in chief, on points which they think differ from your client's story, and unless there is something serious, something important that you wish to get from her, beyond the point that you have been trying to make, that as far as you are concerned, your client was alone, he wasn't with others when this incident occurred.

Besides that, is there anything else that your story differs from her on material respects?

MR SAMUEL: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: She says they were a group of them, your client says it was just he alone? All right.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: ; Just one, thank you Honourable Chairperson. Mrs Mbele, do you know whether there was any bad blood between your husband and the applicant in this matter?

MS MBELE: I do not know. I have never,I didn't have knowledge of any bad blood between them. We had never exchanged words that had ill intentions.

MS PATEL: Right, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

ADV SIGODI: Was your husband an IFP member?

MS MBELE: No. My husband was at the induna's guard, but he was not an IFP member.

He just used to help the community on the instructions of the induna. In our area, everybody was an IFP member, we did not know that there were ANC members around that area.

ADV SIGODI: Did he go around collecting money for the IFP? Do you have knowledge of that?

MS MBELE: No, I don't remember him collecting money, I first heard of it here. He did not collect any money.

ADV SIGODI: Were you and the applicant neighbours at Port Shepstone?

MS MBELE: Yes, we are from the same neighbourhood.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if the applicant fled his home?

MS MBELE: We just saw the youth fleeing to Margate, and we did not know why they were doing so.

I was not aware that he had fled, I just saw him at Margate.

ADV SIGODI: And his family, the applicant's family, do you know if they also fled?

MS MBELE: After the death of my husband, they all packed up and left for Margate.

That is not true that they were attacked at their home. What happened was after the death of my husband, his mother packed and went to Margate, to her children.

ADV SIGODI: In other words she did not leave before the death of your husband, she was not forced to leave the area because of your husband's threats?

MS MBELE: No.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Arising out of the last question as to whether the mother of the applicant had left Port Shepstone, for Margate before her husband was killed or not, we have received an answer from this witness, that as far as she was concerned, the mother only left after the husband was killed.

Is there any question that arises from that?

MR MATJELE: No, there is no question Your Worship.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MATJELE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Thank you, this necessitates some questioning Your Honour. Ma'am, what caused the mother to leave, did you threaten the applicant's mother or family or did people go to their house and threaten them?

MR MATJELE: I would like to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just leave it at that, let him ask that question.

MS MBELE: When she realised that her children had done this, I think she became afraid, but I do not know why she left. I think she just realised that her children had done this act, and decided to leave.

Nobody forced her to leave.

MR SAMUEL: Are you still resident at the same place where you were living as at the date of this incident, are you still staying in the same place?

MS MBELE: I used to stay at Lamont, but now I reside in Pitani. I decided on my own, to change my place of residence, because my husband had passed away.

MR SAMUEL: And the applicant's family, are they still living in the house that they used to live in as at the date of the incident?

MS MBELE: They stay in Margate.

MR SAMUEL: Do you know what became of their house, Ma'am in Lamont?

MS MBELE: Their house was damaged after the death of my husband. The people destroyed their house and I do not know who those people were, because I was also in mourning, so I was not in a position to know who had attacked their house.

In our tradition, you should remain at home when you are experiencing the loss of your husband. But I heard when we were coming from the funeral, that their house had been destroyed.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, we heard that yourself and the applicant were neighbours at one stage, how far away from the applicant's house, were you living?

MS MBELE: It is a bit of a distance. I do not know how I can make an estimation. But if you shout, they would be able to hear you from their house, and they would respond to you.

It was not very far.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, prior to the incident, except for knowing that the applicant and his family lived in your area, you had no reason to communicate with the applicant's family, prior to this incident, am I right?

MS MBELE: We would just meet, greet and talk about general matters, I would see them sometimes. They were not very close neighbours.

But they were not that far, because they will be able to hear noises from my house, and vice versa.

MR SAMUEL: If the applicant's mother left her house, prior to this incident, when you had no interest in the applicant or his family, if the applicant's mother left her house, about three weeks prior to this incident, you would not know about it, Ma'am?

MS MBELE: That is not how it happened. After the death of my husband, she left. By the time the funeral came, she had already left, and I only learnt of it later.

MR SAMUEL: How many days after the death of your husband, did you come to know that the applicant's house had been damaged?

MS MBELE: My husband was kept in the mortuary for a week. In the middle of that week, I heard that their house had been destroyed.

Thereafter I also heard that she had left the area.

MR SAMUEL: Did they tell you exactly when she left the area, on the night or the day ...

MS MBELE: I do not know when she left. But it was after the death of my husband.

MR SAMUEL: How do you know this Ma'am?

ADV SIGODI: Can we take that any further Mr Samuel, she is saying that that is her version. I don't think we can change that.

MR SAMUEL: Ma'am, the applicant's version is that his mother left home prior to the death of her husband, and that is what caused him to come back to Port Shepstone, to talk to her husband.

CHAIRPERSON: But that didn't happen, he didn't come back to Port Shepstone to talk, he talked to him in Margate.

The applicant didn't talk to the deceased in Port Shepstone, he talked to him in Margate, isn't that so?

MR SAMUEL: My apologies. That is correct Your Worship. CHAIRPERSON: No further questions then?

MR SAMUEL: No further questions, Your Worship.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Tell her thank you very much for having come here to give evidence. Are you calling any further witnesses?

MR MATJELE: I am calling no further witnesses Your Worship. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: I trust Ms Patel, you were not calling any evidence?

MS PATEL: No, I won't, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, would you like to address us?

MR SAMUEL IN ARGUMENT: I would Your Honour, Honourable Chairman.

Honourable Chairman, this is an application by Mr Lu Patrick Sima, arising out of the death of Mr Mbele. He came to this Commission, playing open cards with this Commission.

He had told this Commission that although he had stabbed the deceased about 13 times, and the deceased had sustained about 19 stab wounds, he nevertheless took full responsibility for the death of the deceased. He further stated that although there were comrades available or on the scene, he does not know the names of those comrades or their identity in order to disclose such to the Commission.

However, he gives a very cogent reason why he does not know the personal identities of these comrades, in that they were probably from another area called Gamalakhe.

ADV DE JAGER: How would he know that they were coming from Gamalakhe for instance, they could have come from Durban or from Johannesburg, if he didn't know them?

MR SAMUEL: That might possibly be true. That is what he thought, or that is where he thought they came from, because we have heard his evidence that although the place Lamont, where he had lived, is a small area, they used to have consultations with members of the ANC, or comrades from the other areas near by, and I take it then that Gamalakhe was a nearby district where the accused lived.

Be that as it may, it is quite clear that the accused is not hiding the identity.

CHAIRPERSON: Call him applicant.

MR SAMUEL: My apologies, the applicant is not hiding the identity of the other persons that were on the scene, and had taken part in this heinous act on that day. I wish to submit further that it would benefit, it would not benefit the applicant at all to protect their identity or shield any other person because he states that even if this Commission does not grant him amnesty, he will accept that and it is my submission, on that basis alone, one could accept that the accused had made full disclosure.

If he knew the identity of the other persons, he would have said so.

ADV DE JAGER: Couldn't he be in danger if he disclosed the identities of the others and they hadn't applied for amnesty here, and they could be prosecuted and they could take revenge on him?

MR SAMUEL: We have not had such evidence before this Court that those other persons are known to either the deceased's family or to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no evidence at the trial that there were many people, apart from the applicant.

MR SAMUEL: There were, there was such evidence Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Honourable Chairman, and although his cousin was picked up for this act, or this crime, he was not charged, and the applicant had made an affidavit to state that his cousin was not involved.

So the only person that he knew on the day, his cousin, is exonerated also. If his cousin was involved, surely the cousin would now have been prosecuted, would have by now been prosecuted, because his identity was known, and it was known that the cousin was in the vicinity at the time of this incident.

As regards revenge killing if the identities are disclosed at this Commission, Honourable Chairman, I would submit Mr Chairman, that that is far fetched, that the accused fears for his life and therefore does not want to divulge the identity of those.

It is more probable and reasonable to accept that in the situation that was prevailing at that time, and the mobility of the people of both ANC and IFP followers, at that time, there could have been people in the area, especially since the applicant was not from Margate at the time, would not have known the names of the persons that had taken part in this act.

Although he says that most probably by face, by looking at their faces, he would be able to identify them. It is my submission, on that basis alone, that the Commission should not hold that the applicant had not made full disclosure.

Although he is an unsophisticated witness, Mr Chairman, he has given his answers in a straight forward and forthright manner and despite vigorous cross-examination at some stages, he had stood up well.

What are the given facts in this matter? The given facts are that there was strife in the area that the accused was living in. There was a given fact, uncontradicted fact that the accused although the wife of the deceased says that he was not going around collecting money, but the accused was approached by the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: The applicant.

MR SAMUEL: My apology, the applicant was in fact approached by the deceased, to join the IFP and because he did not want to join the IFP, and knowing of the tension in the area, he left the area. That is a given fact.

To further substantiate that, we find that soon after the accused had left his home, his family, his mother and his sister, with their belongings, had left their home.

Clearly, there was some political violence in the area that the applicant lived in.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you think any mother and sister could have stayed on, after it was common cause that a member of their family, killed a respected man, a neighbour of them?

MR SAMUEL: In fact, I wanted to come to that Honourable Chairperson, daily we hear of people being killed, where heads of households are killing other members of other families, but we don't hear of their houses being raised or those families, running away.

To answer the question, there was this possibility that if there was not this violence, there was this possibility that the mother and the sister could have continued living in the area, even though a respected member of the community had died.

Because of the nature of the strife in the area, it was necessary for them to leave their house, because the prospects of violence against the person and property, was real.

ADV SIGODI: Are you now saying that they could have left because of the death of the deceased?

MR SAMUEL: They could have left even before that because of the ...

ADV SIGODI: What could have caused them to leave before?

MR SAMUEL: The fact that one member of a family is not joining a particular political party at that particular point in time, endangers an entire family. Thank you.

It is my submission Mr Chairman, that in regard, it is clearly a political murder. It is a fact that the accused at the time of this incident, was a fairly young man, that he was known to the deceased, that the deceased was an induna or some prominent member of the community and likely to be respected, if not for this political tension.

In fact, the applicant himself said that he had in fact respected the deceased at that time. Because of the political differences, and the tension, that is what led to the strained relationship between them.

In regard to the killing itself, was it a politically motivated killing? It is my submission, yes, it was. There were members of the ANC that had left their homes, the situation was strained and tense. People needed to get back to their houses.

We have heard evidence that there was such meetings of the cells of the ANC, where comrades got together to discuss ways and means of getting back to their homes.

ADV DE JAGER: The trouble I've got Mr Samuel, could I put it to you straight forward, I've got problems in deciding whether there was a full disclosure, because we had to drag that out of him, he never volunteered that information.

I pointed out to the fact that he said, I asked him about an attack on himself, I asked him about information and identifying targets by the deceased, and even at that stage, he didn't come forward with the answers.

It was later sort of pointed out that he said it in his application, and then he started coming in some way or other, could that be a full disclosure if it had to be dragged out of him?

MR SAMUEL: Mr Honourable Chairman, at the close of the session before the tea adjournment, I had the same difficulty that the Honourable Chairman had, and thinking whether there was full disclosure or not and whilst it is not every day that a legal representative takes responsibility for the acts of an applicant, in this case, it is my submission that the legal representative had to take some responsibility for the manner in which certain evidence was led.

It is my submission Your Worship, that the legal representative himself, had failed unfortunately, to lead the evidence in respect to the application itself and that was very clear. It became apparent to the legal representative that when he was cross-examined, when the applicant was cross-examined on this aspect, the applicant became somewhat confused and that is why, it is my submission, that the applicant, what the applicant had written in his application form, was some sort of disclosure, but the legal representative did not lead him on that particular aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: That was a disclosure on oath, the application form is on oath? Due to an oversight on your part, you didn't lead him on that aspect of the matter?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, and I must apologise.

ADV DE JAGER: And he was repeatedly asked what was the reason for killing this man, and he said I became angered, he never referred to the fact that he was ordered by his comrades or the community, whatever it may be, to go and kill this man or negotiate and kill him afterwards?

MR SAMUEL: I agree with the Honourable Chairman, however, I want to point out also that in fact, in my submission, I wanted to raise that point, as to whether there was a direct order to kill.

That is what the Commission sought to extract from the applicant as to whether there was this direct order to kill. The applicant states that he was allowed or requested to go to the deceased, and try and negotiate the situation.

In his words, to use whatever means necessary to overcome the intransigents if any, of the person that he was talking to, namely the deceased. It is apparent from what had transpired thereafter, that he had taken this, that any means necessary meant even killing a person.

Although the applicant goes on to say that he acted in self defence, there seems to be some confusion on his part, as to whether this killing was self defence, or politically motivated. In the line of questioning, it is obvious that he submits that it was self defence, which is logical. However, one must look at the underlying factor, why did he approach the deceased?

His reason was to try and get back home together with himself and his family.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Samuel, I don't want to interrupt you, but really to say that it was logical that it was self defence, I can't see any logic in that, so perhaps let's try another argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that self defence in the circumstances, is very, very thin, isn't it? I mean to throw a stone at a guy in the kombi after having stabbed him once, and then chase after him, when you are no longer yourself, in any danger whatsoever, I mean self defence is just a non starter here.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Mr Chairman, Honourable Chairman, but unfortunately because of the unsophisticated nature of the applicant in this matter, he feels that because the deceased retaliated to some extent, that he had to stab the deceased.

In his small way, he is trying to raise this defense of self defence, but he goes on to say that that was not the only reason.

The reason was that the man refused to negotiate. If the man refused to negotiate, there was no other means of speaking to the opposition party, and the opposition party was represented by the deceased in this matter

If there was no other means of getting through to the deceased that we should resolve this matter through consultations and negotiations, the only alternative or so he thought, was to kill or take out of the way, the person responsible for spreading the IFP message.

The person responsible for recruiting IFP members, the only person, there must well have been other people that was going around in the area, recruiting members, but in the applicant's mind, the deceased was the only person that approached himself and his family and he looked, the deceased being a leader in the community, the applicant looked upon the deceased as an obstacle to a settlement of this matter.

Therefore, it is my submission that there was some, although not an outright, declaration by the cell of the comrades, that the deceased should be killed, but on could understand the nature of the meetings, and what he meant by use any force necessary.

I submit that that words alone will import that there was some direct order by members of the comrades, to kill the IFP members.

It is my submission that the applicant did not take it upon himself through a motive of revenge, to go and kill the deceased, but rather it was a political motivation which was given the green light by the cell members of the ANC in Margate.

CHAIRPERSON: You are taking it for granted that the term comrades, covers ANC cell members?

MR SAMUEL: I am. I am referring, when I talk to ANC cell members, I am talking about the comrades, unless I need to be told otherwise.

ADV DE JAGER: I think in fact, if his testimony was that the community decided that he should die, and they told me go and kill him, that would correspond to his application, but he wasn't frank here and said that happened, he tried to offer any excuse about being insulted, about being this and that, that he had done it on his own, nobody had any part in this, so that is the trouble I am having, whether I should say he made a full disclosure, while he tried to tell us another story, not what was stated in his application.

MR SAMUEL: That might well be the problem that the Honourable Chairman faces, however, it would have been easier for the applicant to come to this hearing and say, we had a meeting on such and such a day and I was given the mandate of a hitman, to go and eliminate a certain person. He would have walked away free, had that been the case.

That was not the case. He came here and in his own way, tried to tell the Commission what actually transpired at those meetings and what he understood by what transpired at those meetings, in that there was no outside direction, or directive that he should be a hitman on a particular person.

But that he should try, because he was the person most effected by the doings of the deceased in this matter, he should be the person who should go back and try and negotiate. After all, he had heard through his mother, that the deceased wished to speak to him, or see him, and that is what he had done.

He had gone back to the deceased. We don't know the exact nature of the discussion between the applicant and the deceased, but it seems that there was some negotiation or some discussion.

ADV DE JAGER: ... because the deceased's wife said there was no discussion, he walked up to him, shouted a slogan, went back, called people to come and help him, and they attacked the deceased?

Should we ignore her evidence in total?

MR SAMUEL: No, we should not actually ignore the deceased's spouse's, or wife's evidence in total. However, we should take it with a pinch of salt.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a likelihood that she wasn't paying particular attention to what was happening, because she didn't know that there was going to be this tragic incident developing?

MR SAMUEL: That is the whole point, and that is why I stopped short of my cross-examination in detail, that she was not really paying attention. After all her husband was quite some distance away from her at that stage.

ADV DE JAGER: Six yards away and there was a slogan shouted at him, and she noticed him walking away, calling others, going that way and calling others again?

MR SAMUEL: Yes, but if one had to cross-examine her, one would then have to go in what she had said at the trial. We don't have what she said at the trial to hand, but from what she says, it is obvious that she is traumatised by what has happened, it is obvious that she feels the loss of her husband and she will in fact, come to this Commission and say that listen, my husband was innocent.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a real difference between her story and his story, apart from whether there was a discussion, whether there was any talk? She may not have heard what was said, whatever words may have passed between the two of them. She was alerted to the fact that there was sloganeering, but what is more important is that as far as she was concerned, the deceased and the applicant were never alone, all the time. The applicant arrived there, in no time, he went and fetched two and in no time, he went and fetched others, so in other words, she is trying to create the impression that whatever happened, happened as a result of the deceased being confronted by the applicant and others around him

That is the major difference between her story and his story.

MR SAMUEL: That is true, unfortunately I am not able to take the matter any further in regard to that.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR SAMUEL: That is right. Mr Honourable Chairperson, it is my submission that the applicant has satisfied all the requirements of the relevant section in applying for amnesty, and it is my submission further, that despite the minor contradiction and inconsistencies, he had come before this Commission with clean hands.

If there is any doubt, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should be granted amnesty, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matjele, do you want to address us?

MR MATJELE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chairman, I will not dilly dally a lot or dwell much on the many contradictions which were in the evidence of the applicant, however ...

CHAIRPERSON: Bear in mind, Counsel has taken responsibility upon himself for the manner in which he led the evidence of the applicant, which left uncovered in the evidence in chief of the applicant, of certain aspects of the contents of his application form, which the applicant filled in some two years ago.

We have to take into account where Counsel says he didn't lead that evidence, and he is taking responsibility for that difficulty. All right, now I don't think we can flog that any more.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, confining myself to the evidence which was heard before this amnesty hearing, it is quite clear first of all that firstly the political motive was not fully proven, especially leading to the death of the deceased Your Worship, in the sense that we know that we spent so much time, trying to elicit from the applicant as to why he killed the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, if we have a look at the evidence as a whole, we had this political conflict, could you suggest any other reason for the killing, but that they have been political opponents?

MR MATJELE: Well, I will not dispute that there was political strife but the main point, it is on the disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not dispute that there was political strife between the supporters of Inkatha on the one hand, and the ANC on the other, that is common cause, is it?

MR MATJELE: Yes, it is common cause.

CHAIRPERSON: In that area?

MR MATJELE: In the area where the applicant had fled, although it is highly questionable whether the deceased was really a member, or a card carrying member or a prominent member as the applicant alleged.

MR MATJELE: Or even if he was a supporter of an organisation, if he was an induna and if there was an election and he was going around, enroling members for the Inkatha Freedom Party, collecting funds, so that they could become card carrying members, it could be membership fees, maybe just a couple of rands, do you understand?

That is not an improbability that he could be doing that on the orders of his induna? He can go around (indistinct) the area, to become members of Inkatha by giving them cards and collecting membership fees.

That may well be the function that he was performing?

MR MATJELE: It is highly probable Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: And it may very well be interpreted by others, who might not know the details that he is carrying on the activities of the Inkatha Freedom Party?

MR MATJELE: Although I agree to some extend, but I believe that to a great extent, the applicant seems to have taken, to have gone to extremes in his actions out of a mere presumption, that because he is an induna, because he probably went around calling people to a meeting, or asking for money or whatever, then he is a leader, then it is a problematic presumption.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but let's grant it, he wasn't a leader, he was, but they were in opposite political camps, I think that is common cause. The window also testified all the people staying there, were IFP supporters or members, so I think it is a fact that they have been in opposite political camps.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would the applicant leave his family and go away if it had not been for the fact that he found that he was being asked to join the IFP, when he belonged to the ANC and did not want to join the IFP?

The pressure on him to join the IFP, is something which he couldn't stand, so he leaves the area. That is probable, isn't it?

MR MATJELE: Yes, that is probable.

CHAIRPERSON: It then becomes really as a political complexion thereto, doesn't it?

MR MATJELE: Yes Mr Chair, although according to the understanding which the elderly people at that point in time had as the witness, the wife of the deceased said, that they just heard that some youths have fled the area, although they did not understand why. It just happened.

CHAIRPERSON: The women folk in the community may not be as well informed as the men folk in that community. I am not being a gender, what you call biased individual, but knowing the role that women play in the African community and men play in the community, I think that the affairs of the community are decided by men.

MR MATJELE: Although Mr Chair, whenever an issue effects a community the women are usually the first the hear about it, and even to spread it around.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR MATJELE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, coming to the question, the main serious question which even raises a concern to the deceased's widow, is the question of disclosure.

The applicant does not speak the truth, she has mentioned that you know, if he would speak the truth, she would really release him in her heart, you know, she would forgive him, but she feels that he really does not deserve this amnesty because of the fact that he is not speaking the truth.

He is not speaking the truth, firstly about the incident itself, as to the people who were with him at the incident. He is not speaking the truth about when his mother fled from the area. There is a lot of statements he mentioned about that. He is not speaking the truth about his attacks.

He mentioned a lot of attacks, which had to be dug out of him, which he did not even mention when he gave his evidence in chief and which are serious omissions which really make one to question himself as to is that really the full truth? If it is not, then how much information is he still withholding with himself?

For example, he mentioned that he was in a meeting with some of his colleagues, but not even one did he mention his name, even at this point in time. We do not even know even anyone of them, even at the moment.

I have a very strong feeling that fine, it is understandable, maybe he may be fearing that if he can disclose any person, then he may be endangering himself, but then has he really spoken the truth?

I believe that this amnesty hearing is about the truth, and it is only once the truth has been spoken, that there can be true reconciliation. I believe that even if he is granted amnesty, there won't really be true reconciliation between him and the family members of the deceased.

In that respect, Mr Chair, without really talking a lot or going too much into the many contradictions which really show that his version is improbable, I would like to state that it is my instructions that amnesty not be granted, that is all.

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I should be very brief.

It is my respectful submission Honourable Chairperson, that there was in fact, that it can't be denied that there was in fact some political strife that had taken place in the area, and that had contributed to an extent to what had in fact occurred here.

I would however, respectfully submit, that the applicant hasn't complied with the requirement of full disclosure. My learned friend has already covered a large area of that argument, I will not reverse it, merely to ask ...

CHAIRPERSON: What in your opinion did he not disclose apart from the names of his comrades or the identity of his comrades?

MS PATEL: He didn't disclose his motivation Honourable Chairperson, he vacillated from going initially there on his own to then having acted in self defence as a result of being, and then saying that he acted because he was insulted, at some later stage, despite his learned legal representative, having accepted responsibility for not having led him on the reasons that he set out in the application, be that as it may, if he was in fact and indeed motivated by those reasons that he set out in his application, he would have of his own volition, have mentioned that.

And also, his having to explain the authorization from the community, suddenly it became the meeting that the comrades had attended, or that he had attended with the comrades. What are the probabilities Honourable Chairperson, of a meeting having taken place and him specifically as a single person, having been sent out to negotiate such a serious matter as having a large number of people who had fled from Port Shepstone to then return?

Would they have instructed him to in fact engage upon such a serious negotiation, and would this have taken place at a taxi rank? What are the probabilities of that Honourable Chairperson? My respectful submission, it is highly improbable that that would have occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that it is improbable that there was a decision taken by comrades that there should be this attack?

MS PATEL: Not that there should be this attack Honourable Chairperson, but that he should be the only person to go and negotiate with the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MS PATEL: I am not arguing that Honourable Chairperson, I am merely stating that it is improbable that they would have sent him alone to negotiate such a serious issue and that this would have taken place at a taxi rank.

ADV DE JAGER: Isn't it more probable that he had been instructed to go and kill this man?

MS PATEL: That is indeed my submission, Honourable Chairperson, that that is possible and in fact probable, but the probabilities of him having been sent there to negotiate first and then failing that, kill the deceased, is unlikely.

CHAIRPERSON: The word negotiation perhaps, may be to perhaps a sophisticated term when they told him he must go and talk, talk to the deceased and ask him why can't we be allowed to go home to Port Shepstone, go back home, to talk to him. I am using the word negotiation perhaps in that sense, what is so improbable about them telling him he should go and talk to the deceased?

MS PATEL: The improbability is also based on the fact that they had already been attacked prior to that, in fact five people had been killed.

Would it then not be more probable that they would have instructed him to go and kill him, rather to negotiate, because that is the level at which he was, the deceased was dealing with them, according to their information at the very least.

ADV SIGODI: And isn't it also his evidence that he continued attacking the deceased, because he wanted to teach him a lesson, that if he did not want to negotiate, that is what is going to happen to people who did not want to negotiate?

MS PATEL: Yes, that is indeed so Honourable Chairperson. I respectfully submit that the applicant's application ought to be denied.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you a question?

MS PATEL: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: How does the political element loom in this matter, is it entirely non political?

MS PATEL: No, no, I conceded at the start of my address that there was in fact a political flavour to that, and that in fact motivated the deceased to confront ...

CHAIRPERSON: He may have confused in his mind, the objective which he hoped to achieve, but undoubtedly he was being driven by political considerations?

MS PATEL: I would not dispute that Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The ground on which you are opposing this application, is that you think that he hasn't made full disclosure of important facts?

MS PATEL: Absolutely Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, is that all?

MS PATEL: That is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, do you wish to reply?

MR SAMUEL: I leave it in the hands of the learned Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. The Committee will now adjourn, it will make its decision in due course and let it be known in time.

The Committee adjourns. What do we do about tomorrow morning Ms Patel, what time do we start?

MS PATEL: We can start at ...

INTERPRETER: Sorry, I did not hear what time was said.

CHAIRPERSON: We will start at 09:15 tomorrow morning. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

 
SABC Logo
Broadcasting for Total Citizen Empowerment
DMMA Logo
SABC © 2019
>