CHAIRPERSON: Welcome Mr Redpas. You are representing Madoda Kula.
MR REDPAS: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you want to address us?
MR REDPAS: Mr Chairperson, yes. On behalf of the implicated person, Madoda Kula, he has submitted a written statement, it is not in affidavit form, to the Commission and to the Committee and he has, in respect of an unrelated matter, made application for amnesty, a copy of which is attached to his written representation of his statement. Mr Chairperson, you will note from the content of that statement it is a short one, Mr Kula, Mr Madoda Kula maintains that he was not present at the incident to which two witnesses immediately preceding us have testified. Based on what I have heard and, presumably, what you yourself Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee have heard, there is no evidence to show that Madoda Kula was indeed a member of that group that attacked that house. It was a tragic incident. We also are not without emotion. We sympathise with the members of the family. However, we maintain our innocence in respect of that particular incident. We also wish to point out that two other persons mentioned in the notification send to us, were, in fact, according to our knowledge, charged with that incident and subsequently acquitted. It is not as has been testified to by the witnesses that the case was simply withdrawn. Our knowledge is to the effect that they were acquitted after due process of law. We wish to confirm ...
CHAIRPERSON: You are referring to Mr Magodola and Mr Mati? Here, alright, it says that ...
MR REDPAS: Welcome Makaloba
CHAIRPERSON: Makaloba, it is wrongly spelt. You are saying that those two where charged and a trial held and they were acquitted.
MR REDPAS: That is the extent of our knowledge. We cannot present that to the Committee as a fact. That is just our knowledge and belief at this stage. As I presume, the knowledge and belief of the family was that the case was simply withdrawn. There is a substantial difference.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR REDPAS: We wish to confirm, however, this is on behalf of Madoda Kula, that he was questioned by the police in respect of the incident to which the witnesses have testified, but he was released and he was not charged for that incident which, in itself, I present to the Committee, corroborates their evidence that they were unable to identify the perpetrators as eye-witnesses. Such information which came to hand later was hearsay, second or third-hand at best and it is upon that basis too that the submission is made on behalf of Madoda Kula that he cannot be implicated at this stage on evidence before the Committee in that incident.
An additional aspect which we wish to highlight and to confirm, because it has been testified to by the two witnesses preceding us, is that Mr Madoda Kula was on the identity parade about which there has been evidence before this Committee and he was not identified. At this stage that is all Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kula we will put you under oath and then just to have you confirm what your lawyer has just submitted to us. Could you then ...
MADODA KULA: (Duly sworn in, states).
REV XUNDU: Mr Chairperson he has been sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you listen? Do you understand English? MR KULA: Yes
CHAIRPERSON: You heard Advocate Redpas take us through your statement and adding a few things to your written statement. Do you confirm that, to your knowledge, all that has been said is the truth, just for us to have it on record that you have confirmed it?
MR KULA: Yes
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions? Ntsiki Sandi.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to start off by asking Mr Redpas, I see that there is a copy of an amnesty application here. Do you want to refer to that, the amnesty application that was made by your client to the Amnesty Committee? Do you want to refer to that or would you have a problem if we refer to the contents of the applicationer?
MR REDPAS: I have no problem with any reference being made to the contents of that. That is after all Mr Madoda Kula's version of the events. That incident ...
ADV SANDI: Is a separate incident.
MR REDPAS: ... is not the incident to which the two witnesses preceding us have testified.
ADV SANDI: When was that application for amnesty made?
MR REDPAS: Mr Chairperson, if I could just quickly take instruction on that. Does the date not appear on the application itself, Mr Chairperson?
ADV SANDI: Is it the ninth May 1997?
MR REDPAS: It was signed on the ninth and submitted on the tenth.
ADV SANDI: The tenth, that was the last day for the submission of applications for amnesty.
MR REDPAS: I believe so, yes.
ADV SANDI: Now let us talk about the incident in regard to which your client had applied for amnesty. When did this happen?
MR REDPAS: 22nd Of October 1992.
ADV SANDI: This is five years later. The incident happened in 1992, as you have said, and the application is made and submitted on the tenth May 1997, the last day for the submission of applications for amnesty. Am I correct?
MR REDPAS: In everything but one. The incident happened seven days after the incident to which the witnesses before this court testified before this Commission. The witnesses testified that the incident happened on the 15th of October 1992. The incident in respect of which Madoda Kula has applied for amnesty happened on the 22nd which is seven days. Otherwise everything that has been put to me is correct.
ADV SANDI: I have heard the contents of the application for amnesty and it seems to me that the matter in which he had applied for amnesty appears to be less serious than the one in which he is alleged to have been involved.
MR REDPAS: Correct.
ADV SANDI: In this particular amnesty application matter no people were killed, no human being died as the result of the action which he has confessed to have committed.
MR REDPAS: Correct.
ADV SANDI: Is it a coincidence that he should submit an application for amnesty in regard to a matter in which no people died? Is it a coincident and not a matter where some people have died?
MR REDPAS: I am not certain what you mean to convey to me by suggesting is it not a coincidence. The only reason for placing that before this Committee is to distinguish between the two incidents. There was one incident to which Madoda Kula says, I did do it, but that is not the incident for which he has been requested to appear before this Committee and in respect of which the witnesses have testified.
ADV SANDI: The matter in which he has applied for amnesty is a matter or it is a crime that was committed in Alice?
MR REDPAS: Yes, Msobomvu, Msobomvu Location.
ADV SANDI: Is that the same place, is it the same locality where the incident that was referred to by the witness, by the two witnesses it took place?
MR REDPAS: Correct. Seven days apart.
ADV SANDI: Can I ask your client some questions, sir?
MR REDPAS: Certainly.
ADV SANDI: Did Mr Galana speak with you? Did he ask you about what Mr Xhanda had said?
MR KULA: No.
ADV SANDI: What did he ask you about?
MR KULA: He asked me about the Ngece incident.
ADV SANDI: Did he not say that there was a certain Mr Xhanda from King William's Town who was a member of the Ciskei?
CHAIRPERSON: Have access to the earphones.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman. A Mr Galana who is investigating this case, did he speak to you?
MR KULA: Yes, he did.
ADV SANDI: What did he ask you? What did he say to you?
MR KULA: He was asking me about the Ngece incident.
ADV SANDI: He did not ask you about what Mr Xhanda said?
MR KULA: No.
ADV SANDI: Did he ask you whether you knew Mr Xhanda?
MR KULA: Yes, he asked me.
ADV SANDI: Do you know Mr Xhanda?
MR KULA: Yes, I know him.
ADV SANDI: Where do you know him?
MR KULA: We were working, we were working together and I know him from the community.
ADV SANDI: Is he staying in Msobomvu?
MR KULA: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Where were you on this particular day when this incident took place?
MR KULA: I was not there.
ADV SANDI: Where were you?
MR KULA: I was at home in Stutterheim.
ADV SANDI: Did you hear about the incident?
MR KULA: Yes, I heard about it over the radio.
ADV SANDI: What did you hear over the radio?
MR KULA: I heard that there were people who died in Msobomvu belonging to the Ngece family.
ADV SANDI: Did you believe that?
MR KULA: I did not believe it, because I was not there and I did not see it.
ADV SANDI: After you returned to the location, did you hear that this actually happened?
MR KULA: I did not return to the location.
ADV SANDI: Do you know the Ngece family?
MR KULA: Yes, because we were all staying in the same village.
ADV SANDI: Did you have any conflict with them?
MR KULA: No.
ADV SANDI: Mr Chairperson, that is all I wanted to ask for now. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Rev Xundu?
REV XUNDU: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Kula, at this time who were you working for? At the time of this incident on the 15th of October who were you working for?
MR KULA: I was working for the Ciskei Defence Force.
REV XUNDU: Was it a usual thing for you to go and patrol in the villages or was it for the first time that this thing happened according to your knowledge?
MR KULA: Can you please repeat your question?
REV XUNDU: As you were listening to the testimony the police used to come to the houses beating people. Was it the first time this incident happened according to your knowledge that the police would go to the village and beat and assault people?
MR KULA: I am not sure, because I was not deployed.
REV XUNDU: You mean that you were never involved, you were never deployed to the villages?
MR KULA: No.
REV XUNDU: At the time of the incident, the people who said that they were ANC members, were they unbanned at this time?
MR KULA: I am not sure.
REV XUNDU: When was the ANC unbanned according to your knowledge?
MR KULA: I do not know, because I am not politically active.
REV XUNDU: What was your duty in the Ciskeian Defence Force?
MR KULA: I was in their logistic department.
REV XUNDU: You were not aware of the banned meetings, you were not aware that they were unbanned?
MR KULA: This is not connected to my duty.
REV XUNDU: As a citizen, were you not aware that the ANC was unbanned, were you not aware that there were negotiations between the ANC and the Government?
MR KULA: I could, I use to hear this over the radio.
REV XUNDU: As a person who was working for the Government, you are supposed to be current concerning the security of the country. We want the truth from you. You were protecting the Government of Ciskei, but you are saying that you were not aware of whether the ANC was unbanned. Do you want us to believe this?
MR REDPAS: Mr Chairperson, with respect, I have been following these questions. They do not seem to be at all relevant to show that Madoda Kula may or may not have been at the scene to which the witnesses have testified.
REV XUNDU: The reason why I ask these questions, Mr Chairperson, is to ascertain and to make sure that the people that were involved in this matter as soldiers, he was also a soldier, they would, they would go into the villages beating people up, intimidating people. I want to ascertain whether he was part of this or not. Therefore I am asking questions that are going to reveal that he is not part of this at all as he says. So therefore on this day you were in Stutterheim?
MR KULA: Yes.
REV XUNDU: You therefore have nothing to do with this incident with the Ngece family?
MR KULA: Nothing.
REV XUNDU: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kula, you have applied for amnesty for having thrown a hand grenade on the 15th of October 1992, no, 22nd of October 1992. Is that so?
MR KULA: Yes, that is so.
CHAIRPERSON: This house is not connected to the Ngece home at all?
MR KULA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: That was another attack altogether?
MR KULA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how many attacks were in Msobomvu at the time?
MR KULA: No, I am not aware.
CHAIRPERSON: You are not aware and the 22nd October 1992 incident was just on its own? What is the relation between you and the Ngece family? What is happening now?
MR KULA: I do not stay in that village anymore. I do not see them. I sometimes see them in King William's Town. I have nothing against them.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much for appearing before us Mr Kula and thank you Advocate Redpas. We are not contemplating making a finding on Mr Kula now. We have notified him that he is going to be mentioned in the testimony that will be presented to us as the Commission. We are still going to make a decision on whether we want to make a finding on him as a perpetrator or not and if we are, at any stage, contemplating, making a finding in that record, we will duly notify him through yourselves now that you are representing him and we will then give him a chance to address us before we make that finding. For now we are going to be going into investigations. We will be interested in talking further to Mr Galana who seems to have implicated him and investigate and see if we want to contemplate a finding on him.
MR REDPAS: As the Committee pleases, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR REDPAS: May we please be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
