Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: The date is the 1st of February 2000. The Panel who will sit to consider the application of Buthelezi, comprises myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my right-hand side, Judge Motata, on my left-hand side Judge de Jager. I note that there are no legal representatives appearing on behalf of Mr Buthelezi, nor is Mr Steenkamp, who has just walked in.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I do apologise. We made arrangements yesterday with the Correctional Services to bring in Mr Buthelezi and I've just spoken to the legal representative, Mr Buthelezi is unfortunately not here yet.

There's another, Mr Tsotetsi, who was supposed to be here today as well, unfortunately he's not here yet as well. There are certain victims which are on their way. We've arranged for them to be here early this morning. I was informed this morning they can only be here round about nine to ten.

As far as I know all the legal representatives are here, except Ms Cambanis. I don't see Ms Cambanis here. We've checked, Ms Cambanis is not here yet. I've tried to contact here and her cellphone unfortunately is not able to work yet. We were here from early this morning. I notice that some of the applicants are here, one of the implicated parties is here as well. Mr Tsotetsi is coming from the Boksburg Prison, why he's not specifically here I unfortunately don't know, but Ms van der Westhuizen who is appearing for Mr Buthelezi is available.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, which matter is on the roll for today's hearing, apart from the matter of Mr Buthelezi and Mr Benswana and Nqanda, who I am aware that they are both being represented by Ms Cambanis who has not yet arrived.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, there's also the matter that's been rescheduled to the matter that's been scheduled to the 4th of the 5th of February 2000. I've made arrangements that this matter also be heard today. That's the matter of Makola and Mphanga, it's AM7675/97 and AM7127/97. The victim's lawyer is available, so is the victim, Mr Boy Skosana. The applicant Mr Padi, arrangements were made yesterday by the Evidence Analyst and by myself for Mr Padi to be here this morning. We've tried to contact him this morning, we're waiting for him. It's on short notice, but that is also scheduled now for today.

Then the matter of Benswana and Nqanda, as you indicated it's on the roll for today. And this matter we're waiting for the legal representative to get to the hearing. The Ngema family was not here yesterday, but I understand some of them have arrived just now.

Then there's a matter of, the Vanderbijlpark matter, Dube, Mokati and Mthembu matter. That matter is also on the roll for today.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Steenkamp, the all seem to be on the roll, but is there anything we could start with?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I see Ms Cambanis has just arrived. I take it we can start with her matter immediately then.

Madam Chair, I can just maybe indicate that the matter of Dube, Mokati, Mthembu, the victims are from Vanderbijlpark, they are here.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We've adjourned until 9 o'clock this morning and it's almost half past nine and we couldn't start with a single matter yet.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I take it now we can start immediately with the matter of Ms Cambanis.

CHAIRPERSON: That is if Ms Cambanis is ready to proceed immediately. Ms Cambanis, do you have any explanation to proffer to this Committee why you are late?

MS CAMBANIS: Madam Chair, I'm ready to commence. I do not know if the Prisons have brought the first applicant and I haven't seen the second applicant yet on my arrival, but if they are here I will be ready to commence immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you give us any explanation why you are late?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Madam Chair, because I was told by Mr Steenkamp that my matter would start at 11 o'clock this morning, yesterday. We were scheduled and my colleague for the victims, I think, can confirm that we were told we were scheduled for 11 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, that is indeed correct. There was another matter that was supposed to be rolled and that is the matter of - the Buthelezi matter was originally scheduled for the first matter, but unfortunately we're not quite sure whether - Buthelezi is now here, I've just been indicated Buthelezi has just arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Cambanis, would you want to be heard then at 11 o'clock, as previously arranged with Mr Steenkamp, to enable you to quickly take further instructions in preparation for your hearing?

MS CAMBANIS: I would appreciate that, Madam Chair, if it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In the meantime we'll commence with the matter that was initially scheduled to commence at 9 o'clock. Who are appearing for the matter in, in the Tsotetsi matter?

ADV STEENKAMP: In the Tsotetsi matter, Madam Chair, unfortunately we've made specific arrangements for Mr Tsotetsi to be here this morning at 8 o'clock, but I understand Mr Tsotetsi is not here yet. Ms Anina van der Westhuizen is appearing for Mr Buthelezi and I would submit, I would humbly ask Madam Chair, Honourable Members, if the Committee would indulge me five minutes so I can establish whether or not, at long last Mr Tsotetsi and the rest of the victims and the applicants are here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Unfortunately we're in the hands of Correctional Services.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is Mr Buthelezi here?

ADV STEENKAMP: I think he has just arrived, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So then we'll proceed with the other one.

ADV STEENKAMP: We can then call immediately Mr Buthelezi, Madam Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: Madam Chair, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: You may.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, who is appearing for Mr Buthelezi?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, it's Ms van der Westhuizen.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, are you in a position to commence with that matter, or would you also want to have a very short adjournment?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Madam Chair, I'm indeed in a position to commence. The applicant has just gone to the bathroom and I'm sure he'll be back, so it's mainly for him to come.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the kind of adjournment I was thinking of.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Maybe we should take a five minute adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take a three minute adjournment.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, you are appearing for Mr Buthelezi.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Indeed so, Madam Chair. We are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I was made to believe that Mr Shane was appearing on behalf of the victims, but I don't seem to see Mr Shane.

Mr Shane, we have already commenced these proceedings in your absence. I fortunately was privy to the fact that you are appearing for the victims. Will you kindly place yourself on the roll. - on record.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. The name is Lawly Shane, attorney from Johannesburg. I represent the victims, Mr and Mrs Gianini. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Sorry, Madam Chair. My name is Steenkamp, I am the Evidence Leader in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed with the evidence of Mr Buthelezi, may I appeal in the new century to Correctional Services, to please be punctual with the applicants from prison. This morning we were scheduled to commence at 9 o'clock. We have not been able to do so, not only in the matter of Mr Buthelezi, but in respect of all the applicants who are held in custody, because all the applicants held in custody were not brought to this hearing until five minutes ago. We'll really appeal to Correctional Services to accommodate us in order for these proceedings to proceed as speedily without wasting any second, which is very valuable to the Committee, by being punctual. We have previously requested them to be here at 8 o'clock. We'd again make that request and hope that it really will be acceded to. Thank you.

Ms van der Westhuizen.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to place on record that the applicant is applying for amnesty for the events which took place on the 24th of March 1991, and during which a robbery was committed as well as an assault on Mrs Gianini, and the possession of unlicensed arms and ammunition. Madam Chair, we will then proceed to call the applicant to testify. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will he be testifying in Zulu?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Zulu.

NORMAN BUTHELEZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Duly sworn in.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you.

Mr Buthelezi, where did you grow up?

MR BUTHELEZI: I grew up in KwaZulu Natal, in the town of Vryheid.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And what educational level did you attain?

MR BUTHELEZI: Standard five.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: When did you decide to move to Johannesburg, and why?

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the decision in the 80s, the reason being that I no longer had money to go to school and I decided to go and look for a job.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And did you succeed in that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I secured myself a job.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Where did you work and what work did you do?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was working at Metal Coat in Que(?), Johannesburg. I was a machine operator.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now in the Johannesburg area, where did you reside?

MR BUTHELEZI: In Katlehong.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What was your involvement with the IFP as such, when did you become part or a supporter of the IFP?

MR BUTHELEZI: I think it was around 1975 on the inception of this movement, when I was still back home and there was no other organisation at the time and that is when I got involved with the IFP, I became a follower.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: And after having moved to Johannesburg, did you formally join the IFP as a political party at some stage?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, because I think it was around 1990.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Can you describe to the Honourable Committee, the political situation or climate in the area where you resided. Let's refer to the time when you committed this crime, round about 1991.

MR BUTHELEZI

"The political climate at the time, around 1990, was very bad because it started as an ethnic conflict between amaZulu and Xhosa. Such that if you were an umZulu at the time they just didn't care where you resided. If you were speaking the language, then that was it.

It started such that we experienced these fighting, especially in the morning when we were going to work and we decided that we should meet and discuss, to discuss the fact that we were being killed. We had fled the township because we were not able to go to work from the township anymore, and that was the time when I took a decision.

There was one Induna by the name of Jabulani Mtetwa who said at a meeting that we should try and procure weapons with which to protect ourselves and we had to raise some funds for the purchase of firearms or weapons.

And one day he called us to the side during a meeting and he said he was going to appoint six people because he had secured a place in Pretoria where this white man who owned a firm dealing with firearms and he said he was going to appoint somebody to lead us or to take us to the place. And he said, on arrival at the place we ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please slow down because your language or your evidence is being translated into several languages and we too are also taking notes of what you are saying.

MR BUTHELEZI

"... he told us at the meeting - there were six of us loyals, and he said we should go and collected the firearms from this white man. We had to get the firearms and some money".

...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Please slow down. Would you please go a little bit slower.

CHAIRPERSON: Just go back to the evidence where you were saying he called you to the side, the six of you as the loyals, saying that you should go and pick up firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, he said we should go to Pretoria to collected these firearms, but there is one person who know the direction. I agreed.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, can you remember the ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, do you remember the names, can you provide the names of the six who were called aside?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes. Titus Ngobese, Jabulani Ngcobe, Wilson - Jabulani Nkomo, Wilson Mtetwa, Conrad Buthelezi, as well as myself.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Who is the person who called you aside?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What's his name?

MR BUTHELEZI: Jabulani Mtetwa.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Where was he residing at that time, can you still remember?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was residing at Zonkezizwe.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: What was his position within the IFP in Zonkezizwe at that time?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a leader in charge of that area, under Inkatha.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, you can proceed to tell what happened after that.

MR BUTHELEZI

"And as he called us to the side, explaining to us that he had information about a place in Pretoria where this white man who has many firearms as well as a lot of money was and he wanted to know if we could go and he appealed to us to go to try and address the political situation. We agreed.

He then explained that we were going to do the job on a Sunday. We had to get to the place at round about 5 o'clock, so that we should get the owners of the place. And he said never to hurt or kill anyone on arrival, and he said we should be very cautious. He said five in the afternoon would be the appropriate time because many people shall have left ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please do not hurry, slow down.

MR BUTHELEZI

"And he said we were going to meet at his place first of all, at round about two in the afternoon, so that we could get a transport. Indeed the transport came, being driven by Mr Titus Ngobese.

We got into the vehicle. We were armed with weapons. We had an AK47, which was given to Wilson Mtetwa and I was given a 9mm pistol".

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Before you proceed, who handed you these firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You may proceed.

MR BUTHELEZI

"And others were armed with knives and a screwdriver as well as a tomahawk, and we left.

We arrived at the place and upon arrival, as the place was pointed to us ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who pointed the place?

MR BUTHELEZI: Conrad.

CHAIRPERSON: How did Conrad know the place?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna told us that he's the one who was going to show us the direction because he was an employee there in the previous years.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI

"It was around 5 o'clock and the owners of the place were leaving in a car. We went back into the car. There is a shop nearby, we went in and bought some drinks and we decided to go back to the car to discus, see what we can do because the people had left and we were hoping that we were going to find them still inside.

We took a decision to wait for them to arrive. We waited for them at a distance of about two kilometres or less because there is no other route to where we were waiting for them, so we knew they were going to use the same route. We waited there until late at night and they never came and we again decided to discuss this, see what we could do. It was decided that we should go to the premises where we should wait for them.

And there is a small gate opposite a shop across and we jumped the fence into the premises and we hid ourselves under the trees, having broken into two groups. Mr Ngobese, the driver, remained in the car. We waited inside until in the evening because these people came at round about 11 o'clock and upon arrival they parked the vehicle in front of the garage and they came and two of us approached them from behind".

CHAIRPERSON: Who are those, give us their names.

MR BUTHELEZI: Two Jabulani's, myself - or should I say I was with Conrad and the other one, Wilson Mtetwa was in the middle.

"When they got near the front door we then pointed the firearms at them and we held them and Wilson Mtetwa pointed his AK47 to the male and I pointed my firearm to the female. That is when we requested them to open up swiftly.

There is a yard on the right-hand side and there was this vehicle that was moving up and down and we always kept it under our watchful eye. And the male indicated that he did not have the keys, instead the wife had to keys. I requested the woman to hand over the keys and she said she was not in possession of the keys. I said to her "Listen the husband says the key is in your possession".

She put her hand in her handbag at which time she did not draw any key from the bag and I was standing very close to her with the firearm still pointed at her. I told her that if she didn't want to give us the key, I was going to shoot her. She drew the hand and I noticed that she now had a firearm, that is when I hit her forehead with the point of my firearm and we took the handbag, which was given to Conrad.

Conrad took the key from the bag and gave it to her to open and as the place was being opening, that is when we explained to them the purpose of our visit. We told them we wanted some money and firearms.

The house was a double-story house and we were in the dinning-room section. The male said yes, they do have money but it was not in the house, it's in the firm and he said we should come the following day so that we could get the money.

And the two Jabulani's as well as Mtetwa took both of them upstairs and myself and Conrad waited downstairs. They were not supposed, these people by rights, to see Conrad because they knew him. Everything that we did, Conrad was supposed to take the back seat. I waited downstairs with Conrad ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interject? How do you know that Conrad was known to these people?

MR BUTHELEZI: They told us before we left, they told us there's somebody who knew the direction to the place.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you, Induna?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI

"We then remained downstairs and we decided to look for the safe. We wouldn't go up to join the others, we had to wait for them. They came back and told us that there was no safe in the upper rooms. We had been told that the safe is kept in the bedroom. We looked around in there and they came back to say they didn't find the safe. We went to the lounge and we looked around in the lounge as well as in the kitchen, we couldn't find anything.

There was other door leading to a bedroom, another one leading to a laundry and each one of us went into these separate doors and this other one came back to me to say "Here is the safe in the laundry ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The witness said Conrad.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Chair.

MR BUTHELEZI

"That is when I went upstairs to inform those people that they should bring down the man because we had located the safe. The safe is not in the master bedroom as it was thought.

I came down and they brought the man down as well. And it was suggested that Jabulani Ngcobe should remain behind and look after the woman. Indeed he came and we told him to open the safe, which he did. Inside we found firearms. If I'm not mistaken there were seven of them, as well as a variety of ammunition.

We took these things, we took these big guns. There could have been five or six of these big guns, I cannot recall, and there was also this one small firearm. We were in the laundry and I pulled a sheet with which to wrap these firearms. There were coins as well as bank notes and some of which were not local currency. There was no time for us to check everything, we only noticed this after we had left".

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Do you know of any jewellery that was taken from this house?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: To whom was that jewellery handed? Who amongst the group of you who were there in the house, who was carrying the jewellery?

MR BUTHELEZI: These were in the safe. I was carrying all the firearms as well as the jewellery. We had these wrapped in a sheet.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: When you went upstairs to the upper level of the house, were you searching in the cupboards or drawers?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not search anywhere.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: The money that you refer to, the bank notes that you wrapped up in the sheet, where did that come from?

MR BUTHELEZI: From the safe.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You can proceed.

MR BUTHELEZI

"There were eleven firearms all-in-all, wrapped in a sheet and there were some boxes of a variety of ammunition and we helped each other to carry these into the car. The others followed us from behind and they brought some clothing and shoes.

When we arrived we went straight to where we knew we were going to find Induna. He came out to say "I've been waiting for you for a very long time now". The time was round about 1 o'clock.

We took out everything that we had brought along and we went to a shack. The firearms were inspected and there were six of these big guns and five of the small ones.

After that we then dealt with the money. Those who were carrying clothes actually found some money inside some of the clothes and some jewellery as well. Amongst the cash there were many coins, Nigerian coins, Italian coins. I cannot recall the others, I think there could have been three or four varieties of coins from different countries, and there were dollars as well. The cash, South African currency, amounted to R4 000.

Induna then said he was going to get in touch with other people and inform them about the success of the operation and I then suggested to him that we would very much request that after having displayed to them everything that we had brought, he should - and we suggested to him that he should compensate us now that we were not working anymore, not necessarily paying us. He promised to see us the following day.

We went there the following day. Upon arrival he took out some firearms, five of them and he said "Isn't it, you explained to me that you want your neighbours to have some of these as well?" I said "yes" and he said "Would you then please go and distribute these, you're not going to get any firearm from among these", because we have one already".

I took five firearms to Peter Ndlela, who was the one to distribute them among the people. We received R200 worth of compensation, each one of us and he explained that he was not paying per se ..."

...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry that I'm interrupting you. You took five firearms to ... and you mentioned a name, I couldn't catch the name.

MR BUTHELEZI: Peter Ndlela.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR BUTHELEZI

"Those firearms had ammunition. They then explained that the clothing as well as the shoes and the jewellery were going to be sold, nobody among us was supposed to get a share of this. We were going to sell these so that we could get some money to purchase more firearms and ammunition.

After that we learnt that some had been arrested ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which time are you talking about now? After how long had these people been arrested after you had carried out the robbery at the place where you had been referred to by Jabulani Mtetwa? It was the following day?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, it was the following day, the driver was arrested the following day.

CHAIRPERSON: Which driver are you talking about?

MR BUTHELEZI: Titus Ngobese.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI

We heard he was arrested and they said they were going to try and investigate as to where he was arrested and how. And five months elapsed and I think it was on the sixth month in December, I think 1991, I was then arrested.

I had now moved to Zonkezizwe at number 4513. The four of them arrived with the police, that was Titus, Wilson Mtetwa and others ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt? I seem to be having technical problems with my headphone.

You may continue.

MR BUTHELEZI

"They asked me whether I knew Conrad and I said "Yes, I know him". They wanted to know where he was staying. I took the police to where he was staying. When we arrived there, Conrad was at home. The police found him inside the house and they started searching the house. They found a firearm, 9mm pistol. That is how we were arrested. We attended a court hearing here in Pretoria until we were sentenced on the 26th of October 1993. I was sentenced to 14 years."

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Mr Buthelezi, can you explain why jewellery was taken from this house?

MR BUTHELEZI: We saw it as a vital source of cash because we wanted some money.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: You say that afterwards Induna Mtetwa paid you R200, was it discussed before you went to commit this robbery that you would receive any rewards or money?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, that was not discussed, he just got thrilled when we came back with so many firearms and I then requested him to compensate us, which he did.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Westhuizen, I might as well cover this point even before, to enable Mr Buthelezi to have synergy in his response.

What I want to know is, why should Mr Jabulani Mtetwa be excited when he saw you coming with this loot? He must have known the number of firearms that were kept in the house of Mr Gianini. In your evidence you said that you were told that there were lots of firearms and there was a lot of money which was being kept in these premises. So why should he be so thrilled to see you coming with so many firearms, as if that was not expected, as if you were expected to come with just a few firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is because the mission was accomplished successfully as planned and he wanted to know whether there were any casualties and we said no. We only pointed out that only one person got hurt and he said "Not even a rape was committed?" We said "Yes, no rape was committed", and he was happy that we successfully carried out the mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the translation say rape or raid?

INTERPRETER: Rape.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would he have expected rape to be committed in the course of your robbery? Was it something that was usual when you had, or undertook such operations?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it was the first mission. He was asking because he had warned us prior to our departure that we only had to secure the firearms as well as the money.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any reason given to you why you should be warned not to commit rape, in an operation which was only intended to give you cash and weaponry?

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason all of the time was such that none among us did such a thing, so that we never made a mistake of doing that which he clearly warned against from the onset.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your indulgence, Ms van der Westhuizen.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, would you say that you - were you regarded as the leader of the group of people who went to commit this robbery?

INTERPRETER: May the question please be repeated.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Were you the leader of the group who went to commit this robbery?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I would say that.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now the owner and his wife, the people that you went to rob, did you see them before that day or was it the first time for you to see these people?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was seeing them for the first time on that day.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Do you know to whom Peter Ndlela gave the arms that he received to distribute?

MR BUTHELEZI: I wouldn't know.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Honourable Chair, there's no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN

CHAIRPERSON: What was the position of Peter Ndlela in your organisation?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a committee member, working association with the Induna.

CHAIRPERSON: And where did he stay at the time when the firearms were handed over to him?

MR BUTHELEZI: He was residing at Zonkezizwe squatter camp.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Shane, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, talking about Peter Ndlela, is it correct that Peter Ndlela is your brother-in-law?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: And is Peter Ndlela the person referred to in the judgment which is contained at page 38 of the bundle, Madam Chair"

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Last paragraph, Mr Shane? Are you referring to the last paragraph?

MR SHANE: The last paragraph, that is correct.

Now Mr Buthelezi, you have said that you were told by your Induna to get weapons, do you remember saying that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: That was before you committed, or before the robbery of these weapons took place.

MR BUTHELEZI: Would you please repeat the question.

MR SHANE: This happened, or the request for weapons came before the robbery and I just want to ask you, according to the Induna the weapons were needed for protection, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR SHANE: Would you agree that it was an extremely urgent task that you had to get these weapons?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I agree with you.

MR SHANE: Can you explain how come you took these weapons in March, but you only took them to Peter Ndlela during November, as he testified? That is according to what Peter Ndlela said.

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the firearms to Peter Ndlela, he is the one who knew people who were in need of firearms. At least that's what Induna said.

MR SHANE: Do you remember Peter Ndlela ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, I don't think your question has been answered. Your question was, can he advance any reason why the robbery was committed in March, and the reason which has already been given was that the weapons were urgently needed for protection.

MR SHANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If the weapons were urgently needed for protection, this robber is committed in March, the weapons are however given to Peter Ndlela only in November, why was there such a long and unreasonable delay? Bearing in mind that you've already stated that these weapons were urgently needed for protection.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR BUTHELEZI: Not a long time lapsed because I did explain earlier on that only the following day I took the firearms to Peter Ndlela. Peter Ndlela is the one who knew the people who needed these firearms.

MR SHANE: Do you remember that at your trial in 1993, Peter Ndlela testified as a witness?

MR BUTHELEZI: I recall that.

MR SHANE: Yes. And Peter at the time when he testified, was he high up in the hierarchy of the IFP, or don't you know?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I don't know because I was in prison at the time and I never came out.

CHAIRPERSON: What relevance has that, Mr Shane?

MR SHANE: Well, Madam Chair, I just want to establish whether this was in fact a - the evidence seems that the firearms were handed in November and that evidence comes from Peter Ndlela. It seems ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whether he was a high-ranking member or not, he was a witness and there's nothing to gainsay the fact that he was a member of the IFP.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is it correct that during your trial you never ever disputed the fact that the weapons were brought to Peter Ndlela during November?

MR BUTHELEZI: On rendering my testimony in court I disputed knowledge of the firearms.

MR SHANE: Yes. Now on of the complainants will testify that you never ever at any time during the course of the robbery, asked them for firearms, you only asked for money.

MR BUTHELEZI: I disagree with that.

MR SHANE: And the testimony will be that when you initially discovered a firearm in Mrs Gianini's handbag, you did not seek any more firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: We continued looking for other firearms.

MR SHANE: Conrad Buthelezi, is he a relation of yours?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we're only sharing a surname.

MR SHANE: Do you have any other brothers who were employed, or members of your family who were employed by Mr and Mrs Gianini?

MR BUTHELEZI: Not my brothers.

MR SHANE: Now in your application for amnesty you state that, and I refer to page 14, that's the typed bundle, the last paragraph you say

"Starvation without a salary. Started being sole family sponsor. The situation became too tough as I watched the children very hungry."

Do you remember writing that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Somebody was writing on my behalf here because I cannot write English. I was talking in isiZulu and the person was taking down a statement.

MR SHANE: Yes. And you then signed afterwards, correct? Now is this - what I've read to you, is this what you told the person who was taking down your statement?

MR BUTHELEZI: I think the person didn't put it as I told him to.

MR SHANE: In other words what would you have told him to - I'm talking about the last paragraph. If your lawyer will show you that last paragraph, page 14 of the bundle.

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall very well.

MR SHANE: Do you have children? Did you have children at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, may I interpose before you leave this point?

You say you did not hand down the information that is contained from page 11 up to page 12, you did not write this?

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall the handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose handwriting is this? Is this not your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: I requested someone in prison, somebody who could write English.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this not your handwriting, yes or no?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I cannot recall.

MR SHANE: You say you cannot recall, but does that mean - is it possible that this what is contained on page 11 and 12, is your handwriting, could it be your handwriting and that you just can't remember?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is possible, it has been a very long time now, I cannot remember everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you write at all, Mr Buthelezi?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can write.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can write, why should you ask somebody else to write on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: It's because I cannot write English.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why is it something that you cannot remember if this was ever written by you if you can't write English? Isn't is something that you can remember, if you indeed did not ...(indistinct) any information which is contained on page 11 and 12?

MR BUTHELEZI: It's because it has been a very long time. Yes, I do recall some of the things appearing in these pages.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the first application that you completed in October, which appears from page 1 up to page 7, did you complete this application yourself?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who completed this on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us a name?

MR BUTHELEZI: Zweli Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he also a person kept in custody with you at the time when you completed this application?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second application which you signed in December, that appears from page 8, who completed that on your behalf?

MR BUTHELEZI: If I recall very well, Douglas filled in this application on my behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you give him the information which is contained also in that application form?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an occasion to go through both applications with your counsel?

MR BUTHELEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane? Oh, before I hand over the ropes to you, Mr Shane - is the signature appearing on page 6 as well as the one appearing on page 10, your signature?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the signature appearing on page 12, is that your signature as well?

MR BUTHELEZI: I cannot recall this signature because it is not the same as the others.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you sign the document that's contained on paragraph 11 and 12? That's something that should be within your personal knowledge, if you don't know it, who is going to know it? Because this forms part of the bundle of papers that are presented before us and there was no indication at the commencement of your hearing, that anything needed to be amended.

MR BUTHELEZI: Would you please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: If you don't know whose signature that is, if you cannot remember whether that's your signature or not, who can be in a position to enlighten this Committee about whose signature that is? The documents which are before us are documents which are supposed to be used in support of your application and there has been no indication at the commencement of your hearing that anything needed to be amended in these documents, to indicate that the document as appearing on page 11 and 12, did not bear your signature. Or was it allegedly, or does it contain correct information?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't give an explanation? Because I do not understand what you are saying yes to.

MR BUTHELEZI: I am agreeing that no explanation was forthcoming about page 11 and 12. As for the signature, really I cannot recall, it has been a very long time now and the person who was taking down the statement, I cannot recall anymore. One person that I can still remember is Zweli Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which is quite strange, Mr Buthelezi. You see this document I would like to assume, was in response to an enquiry made by the offices of the Amnesty Committee, pursuant to the two applications that you had completed and sent to them, so it came much later than your application forms. You can however remember the names of the two people who assisted you in completing the application forms, you cannot however remember the one who assisted you in compiling the document that is before us, notwithstanding the fact that this document was compiled quite later than the two application forms before us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Steenkamp could you perhaps assist. This document on page 11 and 12, have you got the original? If it came from prison surely it should have a stamp, a date stamp? Wasn't this directed to the Indemnity Committee, or was it addressed to us?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I think the document on page 11 says

"Application for Indemnity"

What happened ultimately, the office of the Amnesty Committee has asked for any information that could be taken and that included indemnity documentation. As far as I remember - as far as I can see, this must form part and parcel of his indemnity documents. I can be wrong however. But the original documents are not in our possession unfortunately. But these documents clearly have been taken after certain requests have been made to get information on this information. But this seems to be part and parcel of the indemnity documentation that was received by us. But clearly we don't have the original documents here and as far as I remember, after checking the documentation, we don't have the original of this document in our possession.

JUDGE MOTATA: But where did you get it from, when you say it now forms part of our documentation? Where did we get this document from?

ADV STEENKAMP: Initially, Madam Chair, during the starting, preparing this matter, we normally check all our sources and see if we can get any relevant information and this came up through our enquiries into the archival information, which used to be the Indemnity Board. This is where we got the information from. We received a lot of documentation, not only this, but on other applications as well, from the old Indemnity Board.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which were now forming part, that they should formally apply - I'm sorry, formally apply for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, yes, that's how I understand it, this is exactly the position. These documents were included because at the stage we were of the opinion that these documents, the contents of these documents were actually relevant, that's why they were included in this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me understand you properly, Mr Steenkamp. This document was not obtained from Mr Buthelezi directly, pursuant to any enquiries that might have come from your office.

ADV STEENKAMP: That is indeed so, Madam Chair, but on the other side these documents were already in existence, they must have existed, but we didn't receive them from Mr Buthelezi, no.

CHAIRPERSON: So this document, it's possible that it was even made in 1992?

ADV STEENKAMP: It's possible, Madam Chair. Unfortunately I see there's no date stamp as well. What I suggest we can do, what I will do is see if we can find the original indemnity statement, at least the original, and see whether or not there was any date stamp on this because you see on page 12 unfortunately the page is cut there as well. But clearly on page 11 it says

"Application for Indemnity"

... and there's a case number there.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, then it would be incorrect to say that the document on page 11 and 12, was as a result of any kind of enquiries that you might have made in response to the written application of Mr Buthelezi.

ADV STEENKAMP: No, Madam Chair, you're correct, you're absolutely correct, you're right. But if I can just maybe say, the full indemnity file is not contained in this application as it is purely for logistical reason, but specifically ...(indistinct) the relevant section was included.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: But who the author of this specific information is, is not clear unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: So I think it is not unreasonable for Mr Buthelezi not to remember who signed this document, if it was probably prepared at his instance in 1990 to 1992, when both the first the Indemnity Act came into operation?

ADV STEENKAMP: That seems to be the case, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take that view, Mr Shane. It is not unreasonable for him to say he cannot remember who signed it.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Buthelezi, you already told the Committee that you do write, you can write.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: And is it correct that being in prison you write letters to your family?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: Now does the handwriting on the letters - or let me just ask you, is this your handwriting? You should be able to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which letter are you referring to?

MR SHANE: I'm talking page 11 and 12.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's already I think, responded to that question by saying ...(intervention)

MR SHANE: He doesn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: ... he cannot remember whether that's his handwriting, he thinks it's very unlikely because it's written in English.

MR SHANE: Yes. So is it correct from this, Mr Buthelezi, that you actually cannot recognise your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: I can see my handwriting.

MR SHANE: And you know what is your handwriting and what is not your handwriting?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR SHANE: Right. Well ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Buthelezi, you had a look at all the documents being written in pen, did you take a pen in your hand and did you write anything apart from any signature on these documents?

MR BUTHELEZI: Could you have a look at it. Could you kindly show it to him? And you could even tell us whether you yourself signed at the bottom of the papers, or whether somebody else signed on your behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: You've already stated, Mr Buthelezi, that you signed both applications, the only signature that you couldn't remember was the signature which appears on page 11 and 12. And you've stated that you did not complete the application forms, both the one dated October '96 and the second application dated December 1996, and you gave us the names of the people who assisted you in completing those application forms. Is that not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR SHANE: Mr Buthelezi, I put it to you that this offence was not in any way committed for political, or for a political motive, but was committed because of what's stated in the last paragraph of what's contained on page 11 and 12, typed on page 14, and that it was for capital, it was for money because your family was experiencing grave hardship and in order to make(sic) that grave hardship that your family was suffering, you committed the offences for which you were convicted.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is not correct, I had been working for seven years prior to the commission of the crime.

JUDGE MOTATA: May I interpose, Mr Shane.

Mr Buthelezi, when this crime was committed, were you gainfully employed?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Shane.

MR SHANE: Madam Chair, I have no further questions to put to the applicant, I do wish to state that it is the wish of one of the victims, Mrs Kiarra Gianini, to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll note that.

MR SHANE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

ADV STEENKAMP: Nothing, thank you Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, do you have any questions to put to Mr Buthelezi?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just some clarification, Madam Chair, from the application forms themselves, the first and the second applications.

Mr Buthelezi, I see the application forms, the first on you said was filled in for you by Zweli Dlamini and the second by Douglas, did I hear you correctly in that respect?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And the one by Zweli Dlamini was some time in October 1996, and the second by Douglas, sometime in December 1996, that is two months apart.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now both application forms are written in English, you can have a look at them, the questions there are in English. That is the questions asked.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can see that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's start with the first one, did that Zweli Dlamini translate to you what the question sought from you meant?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you would in turn give him an answer to that.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I would respond in isiZulu.

JUDGE MOTATA: And at the end of the entire completion of the form - let's start with Zweli Dlamini, did he read it back to you? That is, the answers you gave to the questions asked.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's look at page 5 and look at 10(c), the question is

"Did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise"

... and the answer given there -

"They give my money to support my children"

Do you see that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And (d) says

"If so, explain the nature and extent of such benefits"

And -

"Money to support my family again"

Have a look at the document before you.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can see that.

JUDGE MOTATA: And if you page to page 10 of the paginated papers, and now this is the application form filled on your behalf by Douglas, you are asked again the same question

"Did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise?"

You say -

"Yes, R200"

Do you see that?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And they say

"If so, explain the nature and extent of such benefits"

Your answer is -

"Money, plus or minus R200"

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain as I did earlier on. When we came back from the mission, our Induna was excited and I requested that he compensates us and we came back the following day, during which he gave us the money.

JUDGE MOTATA: But at that juncture you did not need money per se, you were worried about the protection you had to have against the attack from ANC, and you were gainfully employed then, you did not need money per se.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now the jewellery - let's just leave the application form for a while, the jewellery, when you went to this farm you had knowledge that this person has weaponry on his farm or at his residence, is it not so? The information in your possession was that he has weaponry at his residential place.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And in the process you took jewellery, and if I understood you well in your evidence-in-chief, you suddenly saw this jewellery as a source of income to purchase more firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was that Inkatha policy that robberies should be committed and if so, also jewellery? Was it Inkatha policy?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it was not policy, but that is something that was raised. We knew when we departed for the robbery, that the person owned a firm and we were likely to come across such things.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did I understand you correctly in your evidence-in-chief, that you were warned by Induna that you must just go for the firearms, did I hear you correctly? - before you departed for Nandine in Verwoerdburg.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now why did you depart and take other things, for instance jewellery? Because you had instructions, specific instructions that you should take weaponry.

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain again. It was mentioned earlier on, or this jewellery matter was raised earlier on, that is why we decided to take the jewellery.

JUDGE MOTATA: Raised earlier on, by whom?

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna himself, he is the one who knew that the white man owned a firm.

JUDGE MOTATA: Between the Induna and Conrad, who worked at the white man's firm?

MR BUTHELEZI: Conrad.

JUDGE MOTATA: And Conrad is the one who should know what is happening there, not the Induna. Couldn't that be reasonably so?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not say because I did not receive any instructions from Conrad. I took it upon myself to come before this Committee to explain everything as it happened.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now according to your knowledge, Conrad, did he work at the residential place or the factory of the owner? Where did he work, where was he employed previously?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not know, I just know that he was once an employee of the owner of the firm.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Judge Motata.

Mr Buthelezi, in response to an enquiry made by Judge Motata, you stated that you earlier on stated in your evidence-in-chief that the Induna had instructed you to go and collect firearms and jewellery, now I've been trying to check my note and to recollect your evidence and I recall your evidence pointedly on this issue, as having been confined to money and firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct therefore that in your evidence-in-chief you stated that you had been instructed by Jabulani Mtetwa, who was the Induna in your area, to go to the place of Mr Gianini, on information which he had obtained that you would be able to get firearms and money and your instructions were to go and rob Mr Gianini of the firearms which he knew to be keeping in his place, as well as the lots of money which according to the information given to you by Mr Gianini, was also found in - no, information given by Mr Mtetwa, would be found in Mr Gianini's house?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what I do not understand, and maybe you can help me with my little problem, is at what stage are you alleging that something was ever discussed by the Induna under whose instructions you were acting, that you had to rob the Gianini's of the jewellery? Because your evidence-in-chief did not touch on any instructions having been given to you by the Induna, with regard to the robbery pertaining to the jewellery.

MR BUTHELEZI: Induna told us - he had given us a briefing to the effect that everything that could help us raise some money and purchase some arms and ammunition we should bring back. I did explain this earlier on.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you did not according to your evidence ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I couldn't hear the translation.

INTERPRETER: He says the instruction was to the effect that they had to bring back everything that could help secure or raise some funds which would be used to purchase arms and ammunition.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if that is what you said in your evidence-in-chief, when you were giving evidence which explained the instructions of Mr Mtetwa, then I must have missed it. And it's the same situation with my two colleagues, we don't have that kind of evidence having come from you. If you then had to take anything that could be used for cash, was any attempt made to take movables, such as TVs or videos, in order to also sell those with a view of getting proceeds for your party?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, we did not because in our initial and last meeting that was not mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you were given a general instruction "get anything that will be capable of being reduced to cash". Isn't that what you've just said? And if that's what you were told, anything that could be reduced to cash is anything that is of value, like the TV, the VCR and such other related items. Why were they not taken, why did you confine yourself to jewellery as an item that could be reduced to cash?

MR BUTHELEZI: I took the jewellery and the firearms because they were in one place and it never occurred to me that I should take anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: You also led evidence to the effect that clothing and shoes were also removed from the house.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also part of the instruction received from Mr Mtetwa, the Induna, that such clothing and shoes specifically were to be removed?

MR BUTHELEZI: I for one did not even touch those things. As I explained earlier on that I took the firearms and wrapped them in a sheet, I could not have carried them unsecured. I am trying to explain the clothing problem. The clothing and the shoes were brought by my co-accused, I only took the jewellery and the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: But were they not removed because of the instruction received from the Induna? Was it not part of the instruction?

MR BUTHELEZI: I asked my co-accused about the clothing and the explanation that I got was that the clothing was going to assist in purchasing ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were happy with the reason that was given by the people who were under your command, because you were the leader at the stage of the group that was in charge of this operation. Were you not? Isn't that what your evidence is?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct, I did accept the explanation, there was no way we could have taken back the clothing items. That is why we had to show all of this to the person who had instructed us.

CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion, was the removal of clothing and shoes part and parcel of the instruction given by Mr Mtetwa?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I would say as far as the clothing items were concerned, no, they were not part of the instruction, that is why we decided to bring back everything to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you have already given testimony to the effect that the reason why this operation was embarked upon was because of the need to protect the members of the IFP against the onslaught from the ANC, and that the members needed firearms for such protection. Have I encapsulated your evidence in that regard correctly?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What I do not understand, if that is your evidence, is why when you came back with 11 firearms, not all of them were distributed to the needy IFP members who were suffering this onslaught. One is familiar obviously with the conflict which was existing between the ANC and the IFP at that time, why then were all these firearms not immediately distributed amongst the supporters of the IFP? Why were you given five firearms after you had requested for some kind of compensation from Mr Mtetwa, instead of Mr Mtetwa being the Induna, distributing the firearms to the needy IFP supporters?

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason therefore is that we gave the firearms to Mr Mtetwa ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please slow down so that everything can be interpreted.

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason is that I took the firearms to the person to whom I was responsible and if he told me to take some of the firearms and give them to whoever, I had to act accordingly and I cannot therefore account for what other things happened without my knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: I had understood your evidence in that regard, to have been that you had indicated earlier on to the Induna that you needed five firearms to your neighbours. And the word you used here, and this is the word that I'm interested in, you used the word "neighbours", whereas what motivated this whole robbery was the need to protect and arm IFP supporters. You recall that part of your evidence?

MR BUTHELEZI: I recall that very well.

CHAIRPERSON: When the next day Mr Mtetwa gave you five firearms to give to your neighbours because earlier on you had indicated that they were in need of firearms.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, the neighbours, even though I did not explain as to how they were my neighbours and he said I should take the firearms, give them to somebody who would in turn give them to his neighbours who were in need of these firearms. I also did mention that he said I was not going to get a firearm because I had one already.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't have that evidence, but that's not very material to me. Now you decided to give the firearms to Mr Peter Ndlela because he was a committee member, is that not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the committee of, what was the role of that committee of which Mr Ndlela was a member?

MR BUTHELEZI: If there were meetings for example, Mr Ndlela was the one responsible for informing people who would in turn inform other people.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you say you had a fairly good relationship with Mr Ndlela, both as your colleague, comrade? You belonged to the same organisation and also belonged to the same committee, would you say your relationship with him was fairly good and courteous?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He also was your brother-in-law.

MR BUTHELEZI: The relationship is such that I was in love with a girl residing in the same street as him, that is why we addressed each other as brothers-in-law.

CHAIRPERSON: If you state that you had such a cordial relationship with Mr Ndlela, can you attempt to advance any reason why he should give evidence which was incorrect with regard to when you gave him the firearms? In the criminal court trail, his evidence was that you gave him the firearms in November of 1991, approximately eight months after the robbery had been committed. In your evidence you have persisted that the firearms were given to him immediately after they were given to you by Mr Mtetwa. Bearing in mind that we know that Mr Mtetwa gave you the firearms the next day after this robbery had been committed. Can you advance any reason why he should give such an incorrect state of affairs if you had such a good relationship with him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would explain this even though it might not be clear. Once a person is in trouble or once a person is facing criminal charges, it becomes easy for such a person to deny knowledge of such things or certain things. The reason is that once a person is in trouble, such a person would be evasive and as I am explaining that I gave these firearms to him and he spoke about a different period maybe because he knows that he made a mistake and - I guess that's the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you know the five neighbours who were in need of such firearms, were they personally known to you?

MR BUTHELEZI: I knew only one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did you come to know of his predicament, that he needed a firearm for protection for IFP purposes? By purposes I mean in relation to the ...(intervention)

MR BUTHELEZI: He was a neighbour of my girlfriend.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if you only knew of one person who needed a firearm for purposes of protecting himself against the ANC - and we take note of the conflict that existed between the ANC and the IFP, why then did you take five firearms to Ndlela to distribute to neighbours when you only knew of one person who was in need of a firearm?

MR BUTHELEZI: It is because Ndlela is the one who was given the responsibility of distributing the firearms, and I was only instructed to hand over these firearms to Ndlela. He is the one responsible for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you were instructed to hand over the firearms to Ndlela? Did I understand you correctly?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And by being instructed you would refer to Mr Mtetwa, Jabulani Mtetwa, the Induna?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I have a problem with that evidence and maybe you can clarify it for me, your earlier evidence was to the effect that when you met Mr Jabulani Mtetwa the next day, he gave you five firearms to give to your neighbours because you had earlier on you had earlier on indicated to him that your neighbours were in need of such firearms. It was a result of your request to him that you were giving these firearms, it was not as though you were instructed to hand over the firearms to Ndlela. I did not understand your evidence to say that.

MR BUTHELEZI: That means it may not have been clear. I think the fault is with the interpreter who did not explain it clearly. I did explain that when the Induna gave me the firearms the following day, he said I should give them to Ndlela.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was not because you had earlier on indicated to the Induna that your neighbours were in need of firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I am talking about Ndlela's neighbours, not my neighbours.

CHAIRPERSON: Not your neighbours, but Ndlela's neighbours.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: After you had given the firearms to Ndlela, did you find out between March and November, whether he had distributed the firearms to his neighbours? As you must have been interested in making sure that these people were properly protected.

MR BUTHELEZI: I could not have done that because Ndlela was my senior in rank. My Induna is the one who could have gone to Ndlela to pose such a question or make a follow-up. I could not have done that because I had my own firearm already and therefore I could not have gone to Ndlela to enquire about the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you given any reason by Mr Mtetwa why you were being made a middleman, why he was not able to hand over the firearms directly to Mr Ndlela, why you had to do the handing over of the firearms?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not get any explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, maybe this would be an appropriate time to adjourn. After we reconvene we will give you an opportunity to re-examine if you do have any re-examination. Will that be appropriate?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a 15 minutes adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

NORMAN BUTHELEZI: (s.u.o.)

THE START OF RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN DOES NOT SEEM TO BE RECORDED

MR BUTHELEZI: Not a single item was found in my possession.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Honourable Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane?

MR SHANE: I have nothing further, Honourable Chair. CHAIRPERSON: You were going to call in a witness.

MR SHANE: That is correct, Honourable Chair, Mrs Gianini. She is present, I wish to call her.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, that's the end of your application?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That's indeed so, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Shane, is Mrs Gianini going to give her evidence under oath?

MR SHANE: She would like to according to my instructions, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SHANE: Can she sit next to me, Honourable Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think they will have to arrange for the microphones. Maybe Mr Steenkamp can borrow you his. Ms Gianini, are you prepared to take an oath?

MS GIANINI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down, Ma'am. Mr Shane?

EXAMINATION BY MR SHANE: Mrs Gianini, this Committee is fully aware of the facts of the incident, can you in your words say why you feel the application should be refused, what is your feeling on that?

MS GIANINI: My personal feelings are that at no stage from when the people came to rob us at the house, at the start they found a handgun in my handbag and thereafter all of them, nobody in particular and everybody in general words were "Where is the safe with the big money, where is the jewellery?" They never ever asked for further firearms and to my knowledge they were content once they found mine and shortly thereafter they found a handgun of my husband's in his briefcase.

The objects that were taken from my house being jewellery, linen, clothing, briefcases full of documentation, personally I feel had nothing to do with politics, with the ANC or the IFP or any particular party at the time. I think it was purely robbery.

MR SHANE: Just one last question. The presence of a large amount of firearms at your residence, was that generally known to people or was that kept a secret?

MS GIANINI: It was not generally known to anybody. My staff at my office knew that I carried a handgun and that my husband carried a handgun, they were not aware of our collection of hunting rifles.

MR SHANE: So that was unknown to anyone.

MS GIANINI: It's not something that one would advertise around.

MR SHANE: Thank you. That is all, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Shane. Ms van der Westhuizen, do you have any questions to put to Ms Gianini?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, just one aspect.

Mrs Gianini, your husband, Mr Antonio Gianini made an affidavit which is included, or the typed version thereof is included in the bundle and I would refer you to page 16 thereof and the top paragraph. I'll read this part out -

"All along Norman and Jabulani, they were keep asking 'where is the safe with the big guns and the money'"

In the light of your evidence just given before this Committee, can you explain that your husband is stating under oath that the people, and specifically the applicant, is asking where is the safe with the big guns? Can you explain that?

MS GIANINI: I can explain that. Initially from when we entered and I had my head split open, we were separated, so I cannot swear under oath as to what my husband had said, but I can say what was said to me during the time that I had the people around myself.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Ms Gianini?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Gianini for having come before this Committee to give this kind of evidence.

MS GIANINI: I thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, are we in a position to proceed to legal argument?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, I will be very brief, if that is acceptable to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are in control, you're handling Mr Buthelezi's application.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is submitted that the applicant complied with all the formal requirements of the Act. He made full disclosure of all relevant facts to this Committee, he provided the Committee with the names of the people involved, he didn't try and water down his role that he played in the robbery, he admitted that he was so-to-say, the leader of the robbers who went out that night and that he was indeed also the person who assaulted Mrs Gianini. He further out of his own disclosed the fact that jewellery was also taken from this household.

On the aspect of whether he acted with a political objective, it is clear that apart from the R200 which was given to him by the Induna, he did not benefit. There were not any firearms or any items that were robbed found in his possession. There should also - the political climate in that area and the background should also be taken into account. It was a very violent time, there were a lot of attacks from various groups on each other and although it might not have been the official policy of the IFP to instruct its members or supporters to go and commit robberies of firearms etcetera, the situation on the ground was much different.

He testified that he received instructions from the Induna, Jabulani Mtetwa, if I'm not mistaken. And in this respect I would just refer to a document which is included in the bundle and that is an affidavit from an address visited. I would like to bring it under the Committee's attention that the address that was visited, for your easy reference, it's on page 28 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 28. I'm aware of it.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Now this affidavit is a by a Mason Mtetwa who resides at 438 Zonkezizwe township. It is clear from the two applications and the information given by the application that he stated that this Induna resided at 34 Zonkezizwe, so it seems that the wrong address was visited. But it's actually noteworthy to see that this person also knows a Jabulani Mtetwa, although we cannot say whether it's necessarily the same Induna.

Now there's also just the aspect of the evidence of Peter Ndlela at court where he testified that he received the firearms round about October ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: November.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: November, I beg your pardon. ... and that this offence was committed in March. I will submit on behalf of the application that it would not be so strange for a person who has just been found with unlicensed firearms to make, or to try and make his possession of the illegal firearm as short as possible. That was partially explained by the applicant or one of the reasons he said that can explain that difference. But what is however important is that Peter Ndlela actually confirms that - if you'll just grant me some indulgence, he confirms that a firearm was given to him by the applicant for self-protection, and that is at page 39 of the bundle. And I'll read it out

"The firearm ..."

I beg your pardon, I'll start from the start.

"Accused five gave the firearm and told him that he had to keep this weapon in order to defend himself should there be any fighting in the townships"

It is further submitted that although the applicant's evidence in certain aspects, seems to be vague or he seems to be uncertain, it should be kept in mind that this incident took place a number of years ago and it's therefore not strange that a person would not remember detail. Thank you, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Westhuizen. We'll now give an opportunity to Mr Shane to respond.

MR SHANE IN ARGUMENT: I thank you, Madam Chair.

I submit with respect, that there has not been the establishment that the robbery was in the furtherance of a political act or to a further a political objective. And also, from the testimony, Madam Chair, I submit that there is also not a full disclosure. The applicant says the mission was in order to collect firearms, we don't need to argue on the political situation and whether there was a need for IFP supporters or members to protect themselves, that's not the issue.

I submit that the facts of this case, there were - the facts are, there were eleven firearms as well as jewellery and other good taken. Now we've heard the contradictions regarding the instructions from the Induna, Jabulani Mtetwa, and I submit that even these instructions as such, are in doubt.

If you look at the statement purportedly made by the applicant, which is on page 11 and 12, and which is typed on page 14, the applicant gives another reason as the conditions that him and his family found themselves in, generally the community found themselves in, which was clearly as a result of the past injustices. That is, I submit, the reason behind the applicant's action on the Gianini farm, to obtain whatever they could in order to get money in order to better their lives.

And I submit with respect Madam Chair, that in the circumstances, if we look at all the evidence given by the applicant, if we look at all the facts, all the circumstances, I submit with the greatest respect, that it hasn't been shown that the actions were in the furtherance of a political objective.

If there is anything further that you wish me to address you on, Madam Chair, I will do so gladly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further comment on that.

NO ARGUMENT BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Westhuizen, what is your reply to the submission made by Mr Shane with regard to the statement that appears on page 11? This is the handwritten statement.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN IN REPLY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the origin of that statement seems at this stage to be unclear. The applicant actually testified - he looked at it, he said he cannot read - I beg your pardon, he cannot write English. The statement appears to be in English. If one also looks at the signature on the two applications, it's clear that the applicant has got a signature which he uses. From - although I also seem to have a cut off page, from page 11 and 12, it seems that the name Norman Buthelezi is only written. So I would submit with respect, that no regard should be given to page 11 and 12. Thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: With hindsight, shouldn't you have brought this to our attention even before we heard Mr Buthelezi? Because the documents before us do form part and parcel of the evidence, the totality of the evidence we at the end of the day have to evaluate and analyse?

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is indeed so, Madam Chair, that is a negligence on my part, for which I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: For what it is worth, it would appear that this statement was made for purposes of an application for an indemnity, which application might have been made in terms of the Indemnity Act of 1990, or the Indemnity Act of 1992, we do not know. So it was an oversight on your part.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This concludes the application of Mr Norman Buthelezi. This Committee is going to reserve its decision in this application and we shall accordingly advise both Ms van der Westhuizen and Mr Shane in due course. We hope that we will be able to pronounce our decision in two week's time from today. We thank you for attending, Mr and Ms Gianini, we know it is not a pleasant thing to come and have your wounds reopened. We hope however, that your attendance here and the evidence that you have heard from Mr Buthelezi, will go a long way in assuaging your pain. We thank you.

You are excused.

MS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm humbly asking if it's possible for just a two minute adjournment that we just maybe change seats for the next application, which will be application numbers 9000/97 and 9001/97, that being of applicants Benswana and Nqanda. The applicants and the victims are ready. I don't know if you want to just take a short, one or two minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: It looks like Ms Cambanis is already properly seated.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thanks, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no need for an adjournment. Am I correct, Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, there is no need. Chairperson, the applicants would give ...(break in sound)