CHAIRPERSON: Will all the legal representatives place themselves on record please, starting with the Applicant.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. My name is John Wills, Attorney of Pietermaritzburg. I am acting for the applicant Bongani Cyril Thusi in this matter.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, may it please you. I have been instructed by the implicated persons, Captain Meering and the farmer Mr Mortezan.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, Petrus Coetzee.
MR COETZEE: Mason Wynburg Attorneys, Pietermaritzburg.
MS JELAL: Mr Chairman, I am Shireen Jelal from Shireen Jelal and Associates. I represent the victims of the Richmond Massacre.
MS WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, my name is Gillian Williams. I am appearing on behalf of the IFP members who have been implicated by the amnesty applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Coetzee, before we commenced I had a few words with you. I understand that you are here to represent the interests of certain people whose names are mentioned in Mr Thusi’s application?
MR COETZEE: That is correct, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: That the extent of the implication is by way of hearsay evidence, in that Thusi does not implicate the two gentlemen you represent. My reading of the papers suggests that he says that it is his brother who told him that the two people you represent played a certain part in what transpired. That is correct, isn’t it?
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, that was also my understanding from reading the Applicant’s Affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I may tell you at this stage that that being so, that is hearsay evidence. His brother has since died, there’s no way in which this can be tested and we can’t take hearsay evidence any further in this regard and the Committee is of the view that you are excused from further attendance and further participation in these proceedings.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, if I could just come in here.
MR WILLS: In view of the other matter that was discussed prior to us coming in, as regards the identity of the deceased, the parties have got together and whilst Mr Coetzee is here, I think it would be important to clear up what seems to be an ambiguity in these proceedings. My position is quite clear that, as far as my instruction from the applicant is involved, that he was involved in an attack in Richmond and he can recall being involved in an attack where a number of people died, the details of which we’ll give in evidence, but that the attack lasted for one night, or one afternoon and one night. Now there is certain evidence in the bundle which gives the impression that the attack lasted for three consecutive nights. It seems that this is erroneous and that in fact the attack did last for one night.
MR WILLS: Why I wanted to raise this while Mr Coetzee is still here, is because he represented the police, or he has access to police information and policemen who actually attended at the scene and they confirm that indeed the attack did in fact last for one afternoon and one evening and I’d just like to clear that up at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that’s not implicating him in any way.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But I mean you can clear that up with him without holding up the works of this Committee.
MR WILLS: Yes, that’s why I’ve raised it at this stage, Mr Chairperson. I just wanted it to be clear at this stage that, whilst there is this ambiguity of a three day attack, in fact we are just talking about one day. Yes thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, perhaps just to assist you and your Committee in preparations for the hearings today. My client furnished me with certain documentation just to gainsay the hearsay allegations in the Applicant’s Affidavit and I’ve showed that to Mr Wills. It’s a pocketbook, an original pocketbook of a policeman who was in charge of the then Riot Unit, who made detailed entries of the police’s movements on the afternoon of the 23rd of June 1991 and also giving details of the bodies of people that were picked up the next day, of the deceased, which could assist my learned friend and also the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: It certainly would assist the Committee.
MR COETZEE: And also as to the allegation that the Security Force present were reduced on the hearsay, this also will gainsay that allegation because there’s detailed entries in this pocketbook of police movements. That they moved here, the defence force was there, perhaps I can leave this pocketbook with you before I depart.
CHAIRPERSON: May I ask whether it is possible to have a photocopy made of the relevant, we don’t want the entire pocketbook, just the relevant portion of the pocketbook. Can that be done so that the pocketbook can be retained by you and we can have the relevant pages photocopied that would set out the bodies that were identified by the police at the scene of the attack.
MR COETZEE: As you please. I’ve identified the relevant entries and it’s about ten or twelve pages.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR COETZEE: As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: Unless you have authority to part with that pocketbook?
MR COETZEE: I have taken instructions from here, Captain Meering has given me authority to hand this original pocketbook over to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for the purpose of the proceedings, but I think that for the purposes of final record, these books must be kept where they ought to be kept.
CHAIRPERSON: The Amnesty Committee is a temporary committee, one of these days it will come to an end of its activities. This book may then get lost amongst a lot of paper, so I’d rather that the pocketbook be retained where pocketbooks are kept. We will have a photocopy made of the relevant pages. Could somebody attend to having the photopies made?
So perhaps it will be appropriate for you not to leave us just yet. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you had a chance of looking at the names of the people who lost their lives in that attack Mr Wills?
MR WILLS: Yes, we do Mr Chairperson. Our position remains somewhat similar in that the applicant will say that he attacked an ANC area on an evening, some month in 1991, he cannot remember the names.
CHAIRPERSON: Well he would not have known the names, would he?
MR WILLS: Yes, he didn’t know the names.
CHAIRPERSON: This was an attack carried out at random at night.
MR WILLS: Yes indeed Mr Chairperson, but why we were concerned about the issue of the three days as opposed to what we believe is, the attack occurred in the one day, that would enable us by the other evidence, to infer that in fact, because these people died on that month in that particular location, that the applicant must have been involved in the attack that caused the death of those persons.
CHAIRPERSON: I agree with you.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. May I call the applicant?
CYRIL BONGANI THUSI: (sworn states)
MR WILLS: Thank you. May I proceed Mr Chairperson?
EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Mr Thusi, you filled out an Amnesty Application form and you attached an Affidavit thereto from where you presently are at Westville Prison on the 27th of September 1997. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Does he have a copy before him?
MR WILLS: No he doesn’t, Mr Chairperson. He has a copy of the Affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that’s enough.
MR WILLS: You filled in the Annexure which is the prescribed form for Amnesty and in that you said that you referred to an Affidavit. Is that correct? And I refer to specific sections of the form from Section 8B onwards. Do you see that? You refer on the prescribed form on numerous occasions, you refer to seeing to an Affidavit. Is that right? I am referring to page 2 of the bundle, 3, 4 of the bundle, 5 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, you make reference in your application from time to time to an Affidavit. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And does that Affidavit appear to be dated the 27th of September 1994?
MR THUSI: I don’t understand very well.
CHAIRPERSON: Have a look at the Affidavit. Is it sworn on the 27th of September 1994?
ADV SANDI: You must look at the very last page of it, Mr Thusi, the last page of the Affidavit.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, this document appears between pages 8 and 12 of the bundle, 7 and 12.
MR WILLS: Yes indeed. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Do you confirm the contents of that Affidavit?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what that means? That means that you are reaffirming that what you have said in that Affidavit is the truth.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Now, is it so that you are applying for amnesty in respect of two incidents? One, an attack in Richmond where a number of ANC people were killed, that attack we know now happened on the 23rd of June 1991.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: And the second incident in respect of which you are applying for amnesty relates to the killing of one Paulus Zulu in Ulundi in January 1994. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: And then you are also applying for amnesty in respect of the possession of certain firearms, the illegal possession of certain firearms. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: I don’t know anything about possession of firearms.
MR WILLS: Well, in the attack in Richmond you said you were using an AK47. Is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: There is nothing in his application form about ¼(intervention)
MR THUSI: Yes, I was using an AK 47, but I was never caught with that AK47.
CHAIRPERSON: He’s not applied for amnesty for that.
Does it appear from his application form?
ADV SANDI: Isn’t that 3.3 where he says "any charges relating to the unlawful possession of firearms".
MR WILLS: Yes on page 7 of the Application and also on page 17, of paragraph 17 on page 9 of the bundle he refers to the usage of an AK Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No, where does he say he’s applying for amnesty for that? That’s what I’m looking for.
MR WILLS: In the, on page 7 of the bundle, paragraph 3.3.
MR WILLS: Now, you were born in Richmond in April 1971 and you were educated up to Standard 9.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Wills, does he confirm that he is applying for unlawful possession of that, because I thought he just said he was never caught in possession of firearms and ammunition?
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Committee Member. Mr Thusi, is it not so that when you were involved in the attack in Richmond you had in your possession an AK47 and you used it. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Now we know you weren’t caught and you weren’t ever prosecuted for the attack in Richmond. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: And obviously that means you were never caught with the AK or prosecuted for the AK. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: But you still admit having had that AK and you don’t now want to be prosecuted for it. Is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed because although he has not been tried and convicted and he’s no longer in possession, he was at that time in possession and he’s applying for amnesty for having been in possession.
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
You were born in Richmond in April 1971 and you left school after obtaining standard 9 in 1986. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Your brother, Ndodi Thusi, was involved in the IFP. He, in fact, was an enthusiastic member and he became a leader of the IFP in the Richmond area. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: He was the person who was the major influence upon you, which influenced you to become a member of the IFP. Is that right?
MR WILLS: Now also in 1990 and I’m referring to paragraph 6, you witnessed a person being killed by the necklace method, this Mzwimdoda Nzamande, and you believe that he was killed by the ANC, is that right?
MR WILLS: I’ll move on. You became a member of the IFP, you were trained and on a number of occasions in Ulundi and you then returned to Richmond. Is that right?
MR WILLS: Whilst you received this training, what did your trainers tell you about the ANC?
MR THUSI: They used to tell me that the ANC and the Communists needed to be removed, we didn’t need them in our area.
CHAIRPERSON: What did that mean?
MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, the applicant has indicated to me that he is battling to hear, if I understood his signal correctly. I wonder
CHAIRPERSON: Is the mike not working?
INTERPRETER: If I may come in, your mike was not on, so it didn’t come through
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: When you said that the ANC, you were told that the ANC and the Communists needed to be removed, what did that mean?
MR THUSI: The only way we would remove them was to kill them.
MR WILLS: You mention in paragraph 10 of your Affidavit that one of these leaders who said this was Brig Mzemela. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Now when you returned to Richmond there was a lot of violence in the area. Is that right? There was, the conflict between the ANC and the IFP was quite intense.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, on the basis of your earlier ruling, I’m going to ignore the information that you have regarded as hearsay.
CHAIRPERSON: Highlight what you regard as important in your questions to him you see.
MR WILLS: Yes thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Don’t overlook just because we said we’ve got an Affidavit, that doesn’t mean that you needn’t highlight what you think ought to be highlighted.
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR WILLS: Now, is it not so that the fighting had been such that in earlier, during 1991, the ANC had been chased away from Richmond and they’d gone to live in Pietermaritzburg, and I’m referring to paragraph 13 of your Affidavit.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: But they returned, is that not so?
MR WILLS: What did you have to do about their return?
MR THUSI: When they returned from Pietermaritzburg, they started attacking us, therefore we also attacked them.
MR WILLS: Now I want to refer specifically to the incident in which you apply for amnesty, where a lot of people were killed, I think the estimates are 16 people were killed in an attack on the 23rd of June 1991 in Richmond. Do you recall that incident?
MR WILLS: I want you to tell the Committee, in as much detail as you can remember, about that incident commencing from how you got involved in the incident on the day. Can you proceed?
MR THUSI: What I remember about this incident is that there was a meeting with Mr Paulus Vezi and I’m happy because he is right here inside the hall. After my brother and Mr Vezi had a meeting
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please let’s do carry on. Please make a beginning again. You were explaining how the attack on the 23rd July 1991, what your recollection was about how it took, how it was planned, or how it was carried out.
MR THUSI: What I remember is that a day before the attack, my brother Ndodi Thusi had a meeting with Mr Vezi and I am happy because Mr Vezi is right here inside the hall. After the meeting, when my brother came back, gathered IFP Members at home, and told us that Vezi and other IFP members were going to come at night and we were going to attack ANC members.
MR THUSI: After that we waited. At night, I don’t remember the exact time, I think it was between 8 and 9 o’clock, they came with spears full of blood and they said on their way coming to our area, they’ve already started attacking people from Magoda and the other areas.
CHAIRPERSON: Just stop there please. When you say "they came", who is they?
MR THUSI: When I say they I mean the people who were with Mr Vezi, Paulus Vezi, who was the leader of the IFP in the area. He came with these people in my brother’s house and they told us they’ve already started attacking, then we also joined them. We went to Ndaleni to attack and we went to Silhlambewu.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please. Where did you go to when you joined them?
MR WILLS: Mr Thusi, I want you to remember that the Committee members are taking notes. You must just try and talk a little bit more slowly, so that they’re in a position to take notes when you talk. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you said that "we joined them" and where did you go to?
MR THUSI: We went to Silhlambewu first to attack there.
CHAIRPERSON: Hold it please. A name is mentioned and we can’t spell the name of this place.
MR THUSI: It’s an area in Richmond at Ndaleni.
CHAIRPERSON: How many of you went there?
MR THUSI: I cannot be certain about the number but we were approximately 50.
CHAIRPERSON: And were all of them armed?
MR THUSI: When you are referring to being armed, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean guns, or
CHAIRPERSON: Any kind of arms, assegais, spears, knobkierries, guns.
MR THUSI: Yes, we were armed with assegais, spears, guns and sticks.
MR WILLS: What were you armed with?
MR WILLS: Proceed and tell us what you did.
MR THUSI: We attacked Silhlambewu first and up until to Magoda area.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say we attacked Silhlambewu, did you attack a particular house, did you attack a particular place, or did you attack people walking in the streets? What do you mean?
MR THUSI: When I say we’ve attacked at Silhlambewu area, I mean the houses. We first met a person who was walking in the street and we killed that person. Some of them we went straight to their houses and killed them there.
MR WILLS: Do you know what political party the occupants of these areas were?
MR WILLS: Can you tell the Committee?
MR THUSI: When I’m saying yes I know, it’s because I know that the area, or the areas which we’ve attacked, were ANC areas and they also had ANC flags hanging.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, let’s get this clear. You say you attacked houses with ANC flags that were hanging?
MR THUSI: What I’m trying to say is that the area had an ANC flag, not a specific house, but the area had a flag and that whole area belonged to ANC supporters.
MR THUSI: When we finished there we went to Ndaleni. We also attacked people who were asleep.
CHAIRPERSON: Just pause there. At this first place, Silhlambewu, do you know how many people were killed?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how many people you shot at?
MR WILLS: Those people you shot at, those six people, do you know whether or not they died, or whether they were injured?
MR THUSI: I cannot be certain whether they died or they survived, but when I shot at them my aim was to kill them.
MR WILLS: Yes, you say you continued to Ndaleni. What happened there?
MR THUSI: We proceeded to Ndaleni and we started attacking the houses there. We were killing people who were asleep. The only person I’ve seen trying to escape was Charles, even if I cannot remember very well, they called him Charlie and I killed him.
CHAIRPERSON: How far is Ndaleni from that first place, do you know?
MR WILLS: Mr Thusi, can you tell us, how far is Ndaleni from Silhlambewu?
MR THUSI: I can estimate it to be like a kilometer, just one kilometer.
MR WILLS: This person you recall as being called Charlie, do you know if his surname was Basi?
MR THUSI: No I don’t remember his last name.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he one of the victims?
MR WILLS: Yes, Chairperson, I’m just referring to page 8 of the Indictment, there is a Charlie Basi, 24 year old male who was the subject of count 23 on the Indictment in that matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, he says he only knows the name of one victim that day, that is Charlie.
MR WILLS: Now, can you recall how many people you shot at at Ndaleni?
MR THUSI: I didn’t shoot anyone at Ndaleni.
MR WILLS: To your knowledge, was anybody killed at Ndaleni by the other participants in the attack?
MR THUSI: Yes, as I’ve already explained that Charlie died in front of me, in front of my eyes.
MR WILLS: Now I see from the Indictment that a lot, well certainly women and children were killed on that attack. Did you see women and children being killed?
MR WILLS: Now why were women and children attacked, do you know?
MR THUSI: I think the aim of attacking women and children was because we wanted to scare the ANC in that area, we wanted them to leave the area and never come back because if they knew that their children were going to die, they were not going to come back.
MR WILLS: And when you attacked Ndaleni, whereabouts, what did you do then? Just continue with your story. You got up to the point where you were busy attacking Ndaleni. Can you tell us what happened thereafter?
MR THUSI: We went to Magoda and we also attacked there and this was the last attack on that night.
CHAIRPERSON: And is Magoda also within walking distance from Ndaleni?
MR WILLS: Now, Magoda and Ndaleni, are they areas where people of a particular political persuasion reside, and if so, what is the political persuasion of the people who reside in those areas?
MR THUSI: Silhlambewu, Ndaleni, Magoda were ANC predominantly supporters.
MR WILLS: Now at Magoda, were people killed?
MR WILLS: Were you involved in killings at Magoda? Yourself, personally, did you shoot anybody at Magoda?
MR THUSI: No I didn’t kill anyone at Magoda area.
MR THUSI: I cannot explain why, it just happened. Only two people died at Magoda area because most people had died when Phateni attacked them. When we attacked, only two people died.
ADV SANDI: The two people you say died at Magoda, were they also women and children?
MR THUSI: I cannot remember very well, I think they were children.
MR WILLS: And after you had attacked Magoda, what did you do?
MR THUSI: We went back home and people from Phateni also went back to Phateni.
MR WILLS: Can you tell us ¼(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. How do you spell this name Phateni?
MR WILLS: I think it’s Phateni, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Where was your home? What was the area of your home at that stage, what was it called?
MR THUSI: As I’ve already mentioned, I was born at Phuleni. I left that area because the ANC supporters had burned down our house.
CHAIRPERSON: At the time of this attack, where was your home?
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Wills, can we just clear up one thing here. At paragraph 14 he says they went to Ndaleni, Magoda, Silhlambemu and Smozomeni. He did not give any evidence about Smozomeni.
MR WILLS: Yes, can you look at paragraph 14 of your Affidavit, Mr Thusi. You mentioned that you also attacked an area called Smozomeni. Do you see that?
MR THUSI: It is because the following day we discovered that the people who came from Phateni also attacked Smozomeni on their way to where we were.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Thank you. Obviously that wouldn’t be part of, he couldn’t have made common purpose on that attack because he wasn’t there.
MR WILLS: Yes certainly, Mr Chairperson, I think as well that the way that it’s framed is before the attack actually occurred, he’s just grouping himself with the IFP, but not applying for amnesty in respect of that attack. Thank you.
MR WILLS: What happened the next day? I see you went to the police station the next day, is that right?
MR WILLS: Can you recall what happened there?
MR THUSI: In the morning at the police station in Richmond we found Mr Meering, he was a detective at the time. I don’t know whether he is still a detective. When I arrived at the police station at Richmond Mr Kongolo said I was a brave man and he said he is saying so because I have managed to attack the ANC and the communist in our area.
MR WILLS: Now, as I understand your evidence, am I correct in saying that Mr Vezi was the leader of the IFP people from Phateni.
MR THUSI: Would you please repeat the question?
MR WILLS: As I understand your evidence you have indicated that Mr Vezi was the leader of the IFP people from Phateni. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: And your brother was the leader of the IFP people from your area. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, he was a leader at Ndaleni.
MR WILLS: Yes, and on the night of the attack, the two areas got together, the IFP people from Phateni and IFP people from your area and they both participated in this attack on the ANC areas, is that right?
MR THUSI: I can’t get your question very well. Would you please repeat that one for me?
MR WILLS: Yes. It seems that your evidence is to the effect that the IFP people from Phateni and the IFP people from Ndaleni got together and they both participated in the attack.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said that.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Now why did you attack that night? What was the purpose of your attack?
MR THUSI: The purpose was to remove ANC in the area. We didn’t want any single member of the ANC or the Communist in Richmond area.
MR WILLS: Now you’ve never been prosecuted for this incident.
MR WILLS: After this attack, again you were sent to ¼(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you get somewhere else. Was anybody else prosecuted?
MR WILLS: Do you know if other people were prosecuted, other participants in this attack were prosecuted for it?
MR THUSI: Even though I don’t remember very well, I don’t have certain information about this. I remember that there were people who were arrested, but I cannot confirm that they were prosecuted.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR WILLS: You then, sometime, Mr Chairman I’m going to move off this area and move quite quickly to the second incident.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Where are you in your Affidavit at this stage?
MR WILLS: I’m going to paragraph 22 on page 10 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, do carry on.
MR WILLS: You were sent to have training in Ulundi during 1992. Is that right?
MR WILLS: And here you met Dalakolo Lithuli. Is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: After that you were sent to the Germiston area where you worked with a Righteous Visimusi Mvalasi?
MR WILLS: And then, after an argument with this person, you returned to Ulundi sometime during 1993.
MR WILLS: It was in January 1994 that you participated in the murder of a person by the name of Petrus Zulu and you are applying for amnesty for your participation in regard to that incident, is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Can you tell this Committee what your participation in this murder was? I want you to explain in as much detail as you can remember from the beginning up until the murder of this individual.
MS MTANGA: Can I come in at this stage?
MS MTANGA: The agreement we had with Adv Wolmarans was that we would first lead evidence and do cross-examination on the Richmond incident.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand. He is not here to take part in these proceedings.
MS MTANGA: So he won’t be able to take notes of what the applicant is giving evidence on.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Wills, it seems that you’ll have to hold back the evidence of this aspect of the matter for the time being, just for a short while, to enable counsel who is involved and who represents the family in that matter to be present.
MR WILLS: That’s fine Mr Chairperson. I was unaware of that but I am happy to assist in the proceedings in that regard. Is it anticipated that we will continue today.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh immediately we’ve finished with this here.
MR WILLS: As you please. Then I’ll just leave that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you needn’t address us on the details, but what I would like is if there is any cross-examination of this witness, we would like to get done with that, on the evidence he’s given about the events in Richmond.
MS JELAL: Yes, Mr Chairman, I wish to point out at this time that there would be cross-examination.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you proceed?
MS JELAL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS JELAL: Was there any provocation by the ANC immediately prior to your attack?
MS JELAL: What was the provocation?
MR THUSI: Because we were IFP members.
CHAIRPERSON: No the question is, what was the provocation?
MR THUSI: Yes, they used to kill IFP members.
MS JELAL: Were any IFP members killed just before this attack?
CHAIRPERSON: You mean on the day of this attack, or the day before that, or what?
MS JELAL: I mean on the day of the attack.
CHAIRPERSON: I cannot be certain that it was on that day specific. This was the day we chose to retaliate.
MS JELAL: In your examination-in-chief you said that you personally shot six people. In which areas were these six people shot?
MS JELAL: Do you recall if these six people were men only or men, women and children?
MS JELAL: How long did this attack take?
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. You were asked how long did the attack take? In other words, your attack.
MR THUSI: I apologise because I didn’t get that question, but I can answer this question. I am not certain as to how long it took but I don’t think it was more than three hours, I think it was two and a half hours.
MS JELAL: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS JELAL
Ms Mtanga, have you any questions to put?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, I do.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Thusi, do you know if Mr Gumbe, that is Mr Ndodosi Gumbe and Mr Robert Zuma, who have also applied for this incident, do you know if they were part of the group that joined in the attack?
MR THUSI: It is not easy for me to know if they were there because it was at night, but I heard that there were people who applied for amnesty in respect of the Richmond killings.
MS MTANGA: In your evidence you stated that the group that carried out a spear attacked on that night came from Phateni and also from your area. Is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MS MTANGA: Mr Gumbe and Mr Zuma came from Ngobeni, is it the same area as your area or is it the same area as Phateni? How would they have joined the group?
MR THUSI: If you can please repeat the name of the area you said they were from?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know where Mr Gumbe and Mr Zuma came from?
MR THUSI: Let me just make something clear. I don’t know Mr Gumbe.
MS MTANGA: Do you know the area of Ngobeni, Mr Thusi?
MR THUSI: There is no such an area in Richmond. There is no Ngobeni in Richmond.
MS MTANGA: Mr Thusi, the applicant, your co-applicants, Mr Gumbe and Mr Zuma allege that they came from Ngobeni which was also in Richmond.
MR THUSI: Let me just help you there Lady, the name its Umkobeni, not Ngobeni, what you’re referring now.
MS MTANGA: Amongst the group that carried out the attack on the 23rd of June were there people from Umkobeni in your knowledge?
MR THUSI: I wouldn’t be certain but I can agree because Umkobeni, its also an IFP area.
MS MTANGA: The reason that I’m asking you this question is that those two applicants stated that the reason for attacking, what provoked them to attack on that day
was the attack carried out by the ANC on them during the day on the 23rd, so they went on to retaliate that specific attack. Do you know about this?
MR THUSI: I wouldn’t really comment on that one because its Umkobeni and my area, it’s a distance, I wouldn’t know what happened during the day in their area.
MS MTANGA: You have testified that you carried out attacks on women and children. Was this the policy of your organisation, to kill women and children?
MR THUSI: Let me just explain something. There isn’t any policy in IFP that says we should kill a person, any person for that matter.
MS MTANGA: Mr Thusi, if there is no policy in the IFP to kill people, how can you justify your killing of the people in Richmond, which you are applying for today?
MR THUSI: I’m trying to clarify that when I say there isn’t a policy in the IFP that says we should kill people, it’s because even Chief Mangosutho Buthelezi never even once said we must kill people, we were never told by him to kill people.
MS MTANGA: Are you telling this Committee that you went on and killed people knowing that you were going against the policy of the IFP, your organisation?
MR THUSI: The killing of people never came from our hearts, we did this because we were defending ourselves. They were also attacking us.
MS MTANGA: So you were defending yourselves as IFP against ANC, isn’t that so?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MS MTANGA: But you couldn’t justify your killing or the attack that you carried out on the ANC are based on the policies of the IFP because IFP have no such policies?
CHAIRPERSON: I think that that is quite clear that there is no political policy saying that they must go around killing people, but we know that this conflict had been raging in the area without there being any political policy of the parties.
MS MTANGA: That is then my cross-examination Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
MS WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, as the applicant said, Mr Vezi is here. Would I have an opportunity to consult with Mr Vezi regarding the evidence-in-chief of the applicant and then take his further instruction?
CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment at this stage and afford you an opportunity to see Mr Vezi.
MS WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We will resume in 15 minutes.
MS JELAL: Mr Chairman at this point in time I wish to place on record the names of the deceased and those that were injured, for the different areas in which they were injured or attacked.
MS JELAL: On the night of the 23rd, on that particular night that the applicant has spoken about.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now then Mr Wills you are aware of this?
MR WILLS: Yes, we have had discussions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and is this by consent?
MR WILLS: It’s common cause, yes, Chairperson. If I might say Mr Chairperson, in view of the sort of geography of the things there, there were a number of people killed on the 23rd and I’m accepting that this is common cause. In the light of the evidence of the applicant as to where he attacked, we will get, and I think this is common cause as well, a smaller number of persons whose deaths and injuries the applicant is applying for amnesty for, because he wasn’t involved in the attacks in all the areas where those people died. But I’m confident that my colleague will be able to put that on record in order to assist the Committee in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: I think let’s be absolutely clear. We are concerned with the applicant. We are concerned with the attacks in which he was involved, for which he is seeking amnesty. We are therefore concerned with people who were injured or killed during the attack by the group of which he was a part.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it’s very kind of you. Will you please give us the names first of all and tell us where, each area, if it is, well, you can handle it the way you would like to. Please.
MS JELAL: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will first deal with the Townlands area.
MS JELAL: It’s the murder of Thlanganesele Happy Dlamini.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you’ll read those names into the record but we’ll have at some stage a typed document which will have all this information on it?
MS JELAL: The murder of Malo Elsa Dlamini. Attempted murder of Emily Dlamini. That concludes the Townlands murders and assaults.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the name of Mr Dlamini?
MS JELAL: Mr Chairman are you looking at the second Dlamini?
CHAIRPERSON: Before that, before Emily Dlamini. That was the one and the one before that?
MS JELAL: Kijema James Dlamini.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, sorry to interrupt here, but just to avoid any confusion here, the applicant's evidence will be to the effect that he did not participate in the attack in this Townlands area so he is not applying for amnesty in respect those names. He surmises, due to the geographical layout of the town which has been shown to him, that these people were probably killed by the group that came earlier, but he is not applying for amnesty for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright. Well, can we then confine ourselves to the group of people that were killed by the party of which the applicant is a member?
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, please proceed.
MS JELAL: We are now looking at the Silhlambewu area for which the applicant is claiming amnesty for attacks on. It was the murder of Siabonga Duma....
MS JELAL: Attempted murder of Kwandeni Duma. Attempted murder of Zandile Duma. Attempted murder of Basikile Duma. Attempted murder of Gertrude Duma. Attempted murder of Stinky Nobule Duma. Attempted murder of Ngingi Liverance Ngcobo.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that surname?
MS JELAL: Ngcobo. Murder of Ntjolo Salitile Gomande Zondi. Murder of Mukushwa Nivad Msomi....
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, I’m sorry. The name Ngcobo was that murder or attempted murder?
CHAIRPERSON: Now you are dealing with murders and you mentioned the name of Zondi?
MS JELAL: Yes, that is correct.
MS JELAL: Murder of Mukushwa Nivad Msomi.
MS JELAL: Murder of Pickup John Poswha.
MS JELAL: Mr Chairman that concludes the list for the Silhlambewu area.
MS JELAL: With regards to the Ndaleni area, the murder of Charlie Basi. Murder of Leon Sikumbuzo Thomson.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. What are Thomson’s first names?
MS JELAL: Murder of Ntelezi Mncube.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell those names?
MS JELAL: Attempted murder of Paulus Strans Kumbula,
Attempted murder of Mpiyezwe Isaac Mbanjwa.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that first name?
MS JELAL: Mbanjwa. Attempted murder of Dumisani Mtolo.
MS JELAL: That is correct. Attempted murder of Dumisani Ncunene. Attempted murder of Themba Mchunu.
MS JELAL: That is correct. That concludes the list of the two areas for which the applicant is applying for amnesty for murders and assaults.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, possibly I can assist my learned friend and the Committee and not be necessary to produce a list by referring to the Indictment and all of those people are included on the Indictment and if I can give you the counts in respect of those persons, I have listed them on the Indictment.
CHAIRPERSON: Where does it appear?
MR WILLS: It’s in the second bundle, Mr Chairperson, the bundle which, unfortunately my copy wasn’t labeled. I got a second bundle. That’s exactly right. It’s under B in that bundle, Mr Chairperson and we can commence, you can see that there’s a letter from the Attorney-General’s Office and then followed by the Indictment page 1.
CHAIRPERSON: This is in Section B?
MR WILLS: Yes. And these persons are listed, commencing at Count 10 on page 6, Mr Chairperson, of the Indictment, that is.
MR WILLS: Yes. The counts I read into the record now are the persons in respect of whose murders the applicant is applying for amnesty for.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just hold it. Right.
MR WILLS: And it is the exact same list as has been read out by my colleague.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, just give us the numbers of the counts.
MR WILLS: Count 10, Count 11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20,21,23, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30. That concludes the list, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I make it 18 matters.
MR WILLS: Yes, that’s correct, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This is now beyond refute. Ms Mtanga you accept this, do you?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson I do.
CHAIRPERSON: Miss Jelal, thank you for your assistance.
Yes. Mr Wills, these counts that you’ve read out from the Indictment, all these figure in the areas that he has mentioned where the attacks took place?
MR WILLS: Yes, Mr Chairman, we have established that between ourselves.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Is there anything you want? Are you satisfied now?
ADV BOSMAN: I’m satisfied, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied now?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please proceed.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, can I proceed with the second incident at this stage?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that we’d like to get done on the first incident here please.
MR WILLS: As it pleases. Mr Chairperson I have obviously completed my examination-in-chief in respect of that incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think cross-examination is over but is there anything else you wish to put to this applicant, anything further?
MS JELAL: No, there’s nothing further, thank you Chairperson.
MS MTANGA: Nothing further Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything for you?
MS WILLIAMS: Yes Mr Chairperson. I’d just like to give a statement from the Bar. The implicated persons have instructed me that they are not opposing the Amnesty Application of Mr Thusi, but they are scared that they
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold a minute. You say that the implicated persons are not opposing?
MS WILLIAMS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson, they are not opposing the Amnesty Application of Mr Thusi.
MS WILLIAMS: And that my instructions are that they no knowledge of the allegations made by Mr Thusi to the Committee today. And that I will not be addressing any questions to Mr Thusi directly.
CHAIRPERSON: That really means that they have no knowledge of the allegations he makes concerning them.
MS WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga we can now proceed with the second count.
CHAIRPERSON: Because we can postpone the argument and address until we’ve finished with the second count.
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, I agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Will that be convenient?
MR WILLS: I’m happy with that arrangement yes, Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Thank you.
Mr Thusi we’re now going to concentrate on your
involvement in the death of one Petrus Zulu who was killed in Ulundi in 1994. I want you to tell the Committee what your involvement in that incident was.
MR THUSI: Regarding the death of Mr Zulu in Ulundi A Section and my participation in his death on the day he was killed. A man called Zwelake Dlamini, who was also a police, he came to my place. He told me that it was the day when Mr Zulu was supposed to be killed. I went with him, my reasons were being that I hated anyone who was an ANC or was a supporter or sympathiser.
CHAIRPERSON: What you’re really saying is that you were in agreement that Zulu should be killed?
MR THUSI: Yes, I was in agreement. We went to Mr Zulu’s house. We attacked him, but I wasn’t armed. I didn’t have any weapon with me at that time. When we arrived at Mr Zulu’s house I was left outside to guard if police were to come or other people were to come and disturb us. I was left outside with other members of the group. The only people who entered Mr Zulu’s house were Dudus Kanjele, who was also a policeman at Ulundi and Mr Dlamini who also was a policeman at Ulundi.
After that I heard gunshots. I cannot estimate after how long, it wasn’t that long, but I heard gunshots and they came back and they told us that they’ve already killed Mr Zulu.
We waited a while outside to see as to what was going to happen and later a certain car came. That car was being driven by a certain male who was a neighbour.
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on please we have to take this down. Give us a little more time. We can’t write as fast as you talk. Please. These two people who had gone into the house, came out and said that the job had been done. We’ve got so far. Now, how many of you had gone to Mr Zulu’s house?
MR THUSI: I cannot remember very well, but I can remember that there were two civilians, two men who were not trained. One guy, he was at a training college, teachers’ training college and I’ve forgotten their names, and the other one, I’ve also forgotten his name. I think we were about 15.
MR THUSI: We were about 15 yes.
ADV SANDI: What time of the day was it? Sorry Chair.
ADV SANDI: What time of the day was it, Mr Thusi?
MR THUSI: I can only estimate that I think it was about 8 o’clock but I am not certain. It wasn’t that late. It was before 10 or 9 o’clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Were any of these 15 people that were there with you, dressed in any uniforms?
MR THUSI: When you are talking about uniform, which uniform are you talking about? Are you talking about an organisation uniform, or a church uniform, what uniform exactly are you talking about or are you referring here?
CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned that two of the police, two of the people that went with you were policemen, Kanyele and Dlamini. Were they policemen in uniform?
MR THUSI: When I say they were police, I mean that their job was being policemen, but on that day they were wearing their own clothes because they were not on duty.
CHAIRPERSON: So they were not in uniform.
CHAIRPERSON: And anybody else that wore any kind of uniform? Military uniform?
MR THUSI: No, I don’t remember seeing any one who was wearing any kind of uniform.
CHAIRPERSON: You’ve told us that you bore no arms that day. What can you tell us about the others? Were they all armed?
MR THUSI: I cannot say that they were not armed because it was at night but I remember very well that Zwele Dlamini and this other gentleman were armed.
CHAIRPERSON: Which other gentleman?
MR THUSI: It was Zwele Dlamini and Dudusi Kanyele.
CHAIRPERSON: So, only two of them went into the house and the rest of you stayed outside.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it arranged beforehand that they were going to be the two people who are going to go in and the rest of you are going to stay out. Was that all planned?
MR THUSI: I cannot say whether it was planned because I didn’t even know that he was going to be killed on that day. I was just fetched at home on that time.
CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you’ve told us that that day you were told that this was the day Zulu is to be killed.
MR THUSI: Maybe the way I put it didn’t come clearly. What I meant was that when this man came it was late at night. He just said to me we were supposed to go and kill Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, proceed. Now you arrive at the house, two of them go in and the rest of you stand outside?
MR THUSI: They entered his house, Dudusi Dlamini and Zwele. I heard gunshots and they came back. We were still waiting outside the house, we wanted to see as to what else was going to happen. After a while we saw a car, it was a government car from Department of Health, it belonged to Mr Nyoga, a neighbour.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this after a while, while you were still standing outside Mr Zulu’s house?
MR THUSI: Yes. After a while, while we were waiting outside Mr Zulu’s house, a certain car came, I think the car belonged to a neighbour or it was his employment car from his employment.
CHAIRPERSON: And what happened?
MR THUSI: After that we left. We went back home.
CHAIRPERSON: So what did this car do?
MR THUSI: When you say what the car did, I don’t understand what you want from me. You want me to tell if the car stopped or, if you can please just
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you mention this car? What significance has it to this case?
MR THUSI: I’m trying to clarify or to paint the picture to this Commission, to explain as to what exactly happened on the day when Mr Zulu was murdered.
CHAIRPERSON: So after this car came, did it stop in front of, or at the side of Mr Zulu’s house?
CHAIRPERSON: Up to that stage all of you were still there?
MR THUSI: Yes. Mr Zulu’s house is built nearby a stadium. We were there, we hid ourselves there, they couldn’t see us.
CHAIRPERSON: Just please, just make our life a little more easy than you have made it so far. Two of your friends go in there, you hear gunshots, they come out and you are waiting to see what has happened. They tell you the job has been done. While you are there a car arrives.
That’s what you’ve told us. Is that not what you said?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s what I said.
CHAIRPERSON: You saw the car stopping.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did anybody get out of the car?
CHAIRPERSON: Who got out of the car?
MR THUSI: As I’ve already explained, that, I am not certain whether it was Mr Nyoga because the car came from his house.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see a person get out of the car?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people got out of the car?
MR THUSI: I couldn’t see very well how many people came out of the car, but all I remember is that Zwele told us, immediately after I saw one person getting out of the car, that we should leave and we could hear people were crying in that house.
CHAIRPERSON: So after Zwele told you all to leave, did you all leave together?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened next?
MR THUSI: You mean the very same night?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, immediately after this incident, where did you go to or what did you do?
MR THUSI: I went straight back to the house where they fetched me.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you all go there on foot? Did you go on foot, did you walk back?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that more than two people went into Mr Zulu’s house before the shooting occurred?
MR THUSI: If you could please repeat the question for me.
CHAIRPERSON: You mention the names of two people as having gone into the house. My question is, is it possible that others also went into the house with them?
MR THUSI: No, only two people entered the house.
CHAIRPERSON: And the shooting occurred inside the house and not outside the house.
MR THUSI: That I cannot remember very well because it wasn't right in front of my eyes, whether it was right inside the house or just outside the house.
CHAIRPERSON: You’re a grown man and you’ve told us two of your friends went into the house. You heard shooting. First they went into the house then you heard shooting, what does that mean? That means that the shooting must have taken place in the house. Isn’t it?
MR THUSI: If the Chairman can please understand what I’m trying to say. What I am saying is that I saw the people entering his house and I heard gunshots and what I’m talking here today it’s the truth and I’m not mad.
CHAIRPERSON: I’m not for a moment suggesting that you are not telling the truth, I’m merely trying to get a clearer picture. You see, you’ve told us that two people entered the house, you then heard shooting, so the shooting must have taken place inside the house and not where you were, outside the house.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV BOSMAN: How many shots did you hear? Can you remember?
MR THUSI: I think I heard more than 5 shots.
CHAIRPERSON: After your two colleagues emerged from the house, did you ask them how many people they shot?
MR THUSI: No, I didn’t ask them how many shots were fired, the only thing they told us was that the mission was completed.
CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry that we’ve taken over like this Mr Wills but please proceed.
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I’d like to place on record that I’ve just been provided with a document which I note has just been provided with me for the first time now, which I haven’t even had a chance to read, possibly in connection, it seems to be some sort of statement in regard to the death of this particular individual and my concern is that, if the Committee hasn’t sighted this document, I don’t know whether or not the Committee has, I’d hand it up, but I would have thought it would have been fair proceedings for me to be able to put the allegations concerned in the document to the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Who’s handed you these documents?
MR WILLS: The Evidence Leader Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do they form part of all the papers?
MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, it’s a statement that was handed over by the Investigator just before we came in here and I think before my colleague can go ahead and lead evidence on it, I think we should adjourn and make copies for everyone.
CHAIRPERSON: Why is all this done at this stage? Why couldn’t this have been done earlier?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, this is just information that I am receiving now and I had no knowledge of.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this material information?
MS MTANGA: I think so, Chairperson, it’s the statement made by a next of kin to Mr Zulu. I haven’t gone through it myself, I was just given it just before I came in here.
CHAIRPERSON: I would like to place on record my disappointment that we are having these difficulties that delay our proceedings. How much time will you require?
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson it looks like a very brief document to me, it’ll probably take me 5 minutes to read and probably 10 minutes to take instructions on, possibly 15 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: If there are going to be any other documents that are going to be handed in or used, please see to it that all that is done now and not during these proceedings.
I’m going to adjourn now, it’s a quarter to one and I will resume at half past one, which means that we will take the lunch break now. The Committee adjourns till half past one.
CHAIRPERSON: Before proceeding with the evidence of this witness, we were handed in photocopies of extracts from the handbook of the police and it will go in as Exhibit 1, but is there any indication as to whose handbook it was?
MR WILLS: F.J. Steyn, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: This document will go in as Exhibit 1 in the record. Mr Thusi, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wills.
EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Thusi, when you say the two assailants went into the house, what do you mean? When you say that Zwele David Dlamini and Dodosi Kanyele, they were part of your group and they were armed and they went into the house, what do you mean?
MR THUSI: I meant that they entered the gate, in other words inside the yard, not inside the house. I think there was a misunderstanding there. What I meant is inside the yard, they entered the gate, not the house or the door of the house.
MR WILLS: Whilst you heard shooting, you didn’t see exactly who was shot and when and where.
MR THUSI: No, I didn’t see who shot.
MR WILLS: Now what was the purpose of you standing outside?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about him personally, or all 15 of them, all his group?
MR WILLS: I’m asking. Sorry Mr Thusi, what was your role, what did you think that you personally had to do by standing outside?
MR THUSI: My job was to safeguard, so as to see whether police were coming.
MR WILLS: What ¼(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: Excuse Mr Wills, can we just get that clear. Did you think your job was to safeguard or were you told that your job was to safeguard?
MR WILLS: And when did he tell you this?
MR THUSI: When we were going to Mr Zulu’s house.
MR WILLS: Now why did you go with Zwele Dlamini? When he came to your house, you said that Zwele Dlamini came and he told you that Mr Zulu was going to be killed, why did you go with him?
MR THUSI: I trusted Zwele and he was my senior and a Caprivi trainee, so I trusted everything he told me.
MR WILLS: Now, why was Mr Zulu killed?
MR THUSI: What I heard, even though I didn’t have a definite answer on this, but what I heard was that he was an ANC supporter.
MR WILLS: Who did you hear that from?
MR THUSI: I would hear this in the offices, Mr Mzemela sometimes would mention this in the offices where I used to work. I would hear people saying he was an ANC supporter.
MR WILLS: When you refer to Mr Mzemela, who are you referring to? Which Mr Mzemela, in other words?
MR THUSI: When I’m referring to Mr Mzemela, I’m talking about the one who is a secretary in the Legislature of KwaZulu Natal.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Wills, if you’re still trying to check what question you can ask, can I come in here?
Did Mr Mzemela tell you why he thought Mr Zulu was an ANC supporter? Was he saying this to you personally when he said Mr Zulu was an ANC supporter?
MR THUSI: He was telling me personally.
ADV SANDI: Did he tell you why he thought he was an ANC supporter?
MR THUSI: He said he had knowledge that he was and ANC member or supporter and he’s already followed him and he is certain that he was an ANC supporter.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Mr Wills.
MR WILLS: Yes. Thank you. Mr Chairperson, I’m referring to the document that was handed to me earlier today, I mean earlier, just prior to the lunch adjournment, that’s the three-page handwritten document. Now this document, I believe, is a statement made by the deceased’s wife or it’s from the deceased’s wife. She mentions in this statement that the order to kill Zulu came from Prince Gideon Zulu and Nzwembe Sibiya. Do you know Prince Gideon Zulu? Do you know who he is?
MR THUSI: Yes, I do know Gideon Zulu.
MR THUSI: He is the chief and I’ve forgotten he’s head of which department in KwaZulu.
MR WILLS: Do you know Nzwembe Sibiya?
MR WILLS: As you please, Mr Chairperson. I was going to just clear up whether or not he knew the second person first.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, do that.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Do you know Nzwembe Sibiya?
MR THUSI: I don’t remember him.
MR WILLS: Do you know if, do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not this order to kill Zulu came from Prince Gideon Zulu?
MR THUSI: No, I didn’t have any idea, I’m hearing this for the first time.
MR WILLS: Now there was a stage when you were in jail when you were interviewed by a member of the Truth Commission staff, is that right? Mrs Stephanie Muller interviewed you on the 27th August 1997. I’m referring to page 16 of the bundle Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, of the first bundle. Do you remember that?
You don’t have it in front of you, Mr Thusi. Do you remember being interviewed by a woman called Stephanie Muller from the Truth Commission and in prison?
MR WILLS: Now Ms Muller records as a record of her statement, and I’m referring to the penultimate paragraph, that, at the time of this attack, you were carrying a 9 mm parabellum, which was issued to you by an Mzemela and through reading it Brig Mzemela she’s referring to. What do you have to say about that?
MR THUSI: It is not the truth. I think she didn’t understand me. What I said to her is that someone had a 9mm. I also had a 9mm and other guns but when we went and attacked Mr Zulu’s house, I didn’t have a weapon with me.
MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson my receiver seems to be very intermittent, I wonder if I could ask for an indulgence and change it?
MR WILLS: Thank you. Now is it so that you told her that you were given a 9mm by Brig Mzemela?
MR THUSI: Who are you referring to, Brig Mzemela or Robert Mzemela?
MR WILLS: Well let me rather ask you Mr Thusi, it says here and possibly you can help me, she refers to, you were given a 9mm by Mzemela. Did any Mzemela give you a 9mm?
CHAIRPERSON: Just read that sentence to him, please.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
I quote, "Thusi" this is the report by Stephanie Muller "Thusi carried a 9mm Parabellum which was issued to him by Mzemela as he was a bodyguard for Mvalasi and needed to be armed." Now what do you have to say about that?
MR THUSI: Yes, there were weapons or guns which were given to me by Mr Mzemela, including a 9mm.
MR WILLS: Which Mzemela was that?
MR THUSI: Robert Mzemela, I was working under him.
MR WILLS: And this report indicates that, and I quote
"at the time of the murder they were all carrying handguns" that included yourself, it implies that you were carrying a 9mm, what do you have to say about that? This is on the night of the murder of Zulu.
MR THUSI: I’m hearing this for the first time.
MR WILLS: In other words you maintain your position that on that night you were unarmed, is that right?
MR WILLS: The statement, and I refer to the, Mr Chairperson it hasn’t been entered as an Exhibit, I didn’t think that I could because it isn’t an original, I’m expecting it to be possibly entered later but for convenience could we provisionally, for reference purposes, call it Exhibit B, this is the statement that’s headed death of Prince Petrus Zulu, provisionally? I think that one of my colleagues will hand it up?
CHAIRPERSON: Which document is it?
MR WILLS: I’m referring to this three page document that we all got just before lunch, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don’t know whether it’s going to be used at all, I don’t think you should worry about it, unless somebody’s going to use it in evidence.
MR WILLS: As you please, Mr Chairperson.
Just one point, there is mentioned in this statement of the two people, or of persons that were attacking Mr Zulu when he died on that night in January, that they were wearing Khaki overalls and brown overalls. Do you know anything about that?
MR THUSI: No, I don’t remember them wearing such clothes.
MR WILLS: Thank you. And in respect of this incident, you have at no stage been prosecuted or arrested. Is that correct?
MR WILLS: No policemen have ever questioned you about your involvement in this murder or sought any information from you whatsoever, is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: This is in fact the first time you are mentioning this in public, is that right?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: Mr Thusi, just to conclude your evidence, and Mr Chairperson, I’m concluding in respect of both the Richmond incident and this one at Ulundi, you say in paragraph 32, 31 and 32, of the Reasons why you did these things, why you committed these attacks, you say you were a loyal Inkatha soldier and so, in paragraph 32, you were motivated by a desire to ensure that the IFP was the dominant political party in KwaZulu Natal. Do you confirm that?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: You were worried about
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
MR WILLS: And you were worried that, you wanted to stop the ANC and the Communists from coming into power.
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: In conclusion, do you have anything you want to say to the victims of those people, the relatives of the victims who were involved in these acts.
MR THUSI: What I would like to tell the Committee and the people who suffered because of my actions and the people of South Africa as a whole. I am here today to ask for amnesty because I cannot rest. I know it is difficult for them to forgive me for what I’ve done. I’ve taken away their lovely relatives, but they must understand one thing, I came here, not because I was forced by anyone to come, I came here to tell them the truth so that they know at last what happened to their loved ones. Therefore, I would like to tell the families that they can take a decision about my life, but I would like to have peace with the family and to apologise to all of them.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I’m sorry, there’s one other item that I want you to address. When you were in prison, did anybody come to you and tell you what to do about, or what not to do about an amnesty application and if so, please explain to the Committee?
MR THUSI: Yes. While in Medium B in Westville Prison, before I’ve moved to the medium which I am, Mr Hlongwe, who was a Captain, he’s working for IFP, I called him and I told him that I wanted to apply for amnesty and I wanted to tell the people about what happened about their families. He said to me I mustn’t do it because what I’m going to do was going to bring down the image of the organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this relevant? We don’t have that gentleman here, Mr Hlongwe, to be able to cross-examine him on these things.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I submit it’s relevance lies in the fact that it substantiates the fact that, substantiates his political involvement in the sense that some official from a political party gave him this advice subsequent to his conviction and the deeds that he did, but beyond that, I can’t take it any further.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, for what it is worth, we’ll let it into the record. What he’s trying to say is that he was dissuaded from applying because it might bring disrespect or dishonour to the IFP.
MR WILLS: Yes, indeed, thank you Mr Chairperson. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOLMARANS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Mr Thusi, when you were asked to give the details about the killing of Mr Zulu, you were asked at length by the Honourable Chairman, about going into the house and who went into the house, how many people went into the house. It was clear from what you were saying, and certainly the impression created with me, was that at least two people entered the house as such, the structure. Do you agree with that?
MR WOLMARANS: So then why is it that you have changed your version, as it were, to now the position that nobody in fact
entered the house, but that they only entered the yard and not the house as such?
MR THUSI: I think there was a misunderstanding there because I didn’t actually make that, I didn’t actually differentiate between the yard and the house.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi when your statement was taken and you made an affidavit, surely you must have realised the importance of the documents being accurate? Isn’t that so?
MR THUSI: Would you please repeat that question?
MR WOLMARANS: When you made the affidavit which forms part of your application, you must have realised the importance of the documents being accurate, is that not so?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WOLMARANS: Well if that is so then why, in your application, do you refer to the house when you knew that it was the yard?
MR THUSI: As I’ve already explained, it means I’ve failed to differentiate, I didn’t explain clearly whether what they’ve done it inside the house or inside the yard, outside in the yard.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, was this in the front part of the house or the back part of the house that the shootings took place?
MR THUSI: I don’t remember very well, but what happened I think it’s, I would say it’s the house, whether it was the back or the front, I don’t remember.
MR WOLMARANS: But Mr Thusi, you were the person who was there, you saw them entering, you saw where the shooting took place, only you can tell us whether it was the front or the back of the house.
MR THUSI: Yes, I was present, but I wasn’t inside the house. I don’t know whether it was at the back of the house or the front.
CHAIRPERSON: That question is, let’s just get clear. You see he’s not saying that you were inside the house or outside the house, the question is whether the shooting took place behind or in front of the house. In other words in the yard behind the house or in the yard in front of the house.
MR THUSI: My apology, because truly I don’t remember.
CHAIRPERSON: There are these two gentlemen who entered the gate. Is the gate in the front of the house, or at the back of the house?
MR THUSI: In front of the house, that’s where the gate is.
CHAIRPERSON: You stood outside the gate, in front of the house?
MR THUSI: As I’ve already explained that, we were outside the yard, but we were not so close, we were hiding in a playground nearby.
CHAIRPERSON: Now would that playground be in front of the gate outside the yard, or was it somewhere else, this playground?
MR THUSI: In front of Mr Zulu’s house, that’s where the playground is.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you want to know whether the shooting came from the front or from the back of the house, meaning the yard. Is that what you want to know?
Now you have given us a picture. You were standing outside the gate in the playground. The playground is in front. There is a gate that leads into the yard. Now the questions is, was the shooting in the front yard of the house, or was the shooting in the back yard of the house?
MR THUSI: That’s exactly what I said I don’t remember, but I do remember that they shot him inside the yard, but I don’t remember whether it was at the front or the back of the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you not see from where you were?
MR THUSI: No, I didn’t see that, the only time I saw them is when they entered the yard or the gate.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don’t think anything turns on it ultimately unless you are of the view that it’s crucial?
MR WOLMARANS: Chairperson, I think it must go to his credibility
CHAIRPERSON: Well you haven’t put forward what your view is and what the evidence is.
MR WOLMARANS: Yes, I intend to do that now Mr Chairman.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, I intend to lead evidence to state that the shooting in fact took place outside of the house at the back of the house, at the back door. Would you like to comment on that?
MR THUSI: I cannot deny that because everything happened so quick and it wasn’t so open. The only thing that I remember with that incident is that I heard gunshots.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, in your application at paragraph 27, you mention the persons that accompanied you on this mission. Is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: During the course of your evidence you mentioned that there were in fact 15 people, or at least 15 people, in this group who went to attack Mr Zulu’s house. Why was that not mentioned in your application?
MR THUSI: I don’t remember in my statement mentioning any 15 people. I only mentioned, in fact I was estimating here earlier that I think the group was about 15 members.
MR WOLMARANS: The question is, why did you not mention that there were 15 people, why do you only mention 4?
MR THUSI: I think he didn’t understand me. What I said here today is that among the people who attacked Mr Zulu’s house, these are the people that I remember their names, and I mentioned the four and the very four are the ones whom I’ve mentioned in my statement.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, what I want to know is why in your application did you not say that you were a group of about 15? That’s what I want to know.
MR THUSI: I explain that we were quite a number and then I mentioned only the names of the people whom I remembered.
MR WOLMARANS: Can we just now turn to the interview conducted with Stephanie Muller at the Westville Prison with you, this was on the 27th August 1997. Do you recall that interview.
MR WOLMARANS: Stephanie Muller recalls that you told her "at the time of the murder they were all carrying handguns." Do you recall that?
MR THUSI: When I made this statement with this lady, whatever I said, I said it in Zulu and the prison worker interpreted to the lady on my behalf. Probably some of the facts were misled.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, that is hardly a fact which there could be misunderstanding about. They were either all carrying handguns or they weren’t. Now can you explain?
MR THUSI: What exactly do you want me to explain?
MR WOLMARANS: Why is it that you told Stephanie Muller that all the participants or persons in the group were carrying handguns?
MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I must come in here. There isn’t evidence to the effect that he told Stephanie Muller this, this is simply a recording of an interview, whether or not that is accurate, there is no evidence to that effect.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think that we’re entitled to put it because he’s been questioned about this document even by you. That one sentence reads "at the time of the murder they were all carrying handguns". There appears this sentence. He can offer an explanation. He said right now that he thinks that part of the explanation may be because the evidence was given, his statement was made through an interpreter.
You are given another chance. Think again. There is a sentence here in the last paragraph which says "at the time of the murder they were all carrying handguns."
MR THUSI: No, I don’t remember.
MR WOLMARANS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Mr Thusi, I want to suggest to you that the context in which this is given and the fact that it is recorded here that you were carrying a 9mm Parabellum, is not something which Stephanie Muller would have or could have made a mistake about. That information could only have come from you. Would you like to comment on that?
MR THUSI: As I have already explained that, I had a 9mm which was given to me by Mr Mzemela but on the day in question I had no weapon with me.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, I want to suggest to you that the context that this is given in relates only to the murder in question and therefore you would not have raised having been issued with a 9mm pistol if you hadn’t told Stephanie Muller that on the night in question you were carrying such a weapon.
MR THUSI: I will put it clearly that I don’t know anything about this. I gave Mr Wills my affidavit and I don’t think you can find something like this in my affidavit. As I’ve already mentioned that someone was interpreting, therefore it might have been a misinterpretation.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi I want to suggest to you that this interview is in conflict with what you have told this Committee today. Now just to go on, you told the Committee that you didn’t know, this was in your evidence-in-chief, "I did not know that he was to be killed." Do you recall saying that?
MR THUSI: I’m hearing this for the first time, I don’t know where you got this, I didn’t say such a thing.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, I want to suggest to you that that was your evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: That was part of the evidence. The rest of the evidence was he was told they were going to kill Zulu and they wanted him to join and he joined them.
MR WOLMARANS: That is so Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what are we going to make about that. The fact of the matter is that you are not going to dispute that he wasn’t there.
MR WOLMARANS: No Mr Chairperson, but what I’m getting at is initially he said he didn’t know that Zulu was to be killed and later on he said that he in fact found out that he was to be killed. Now it seems to suggest that his initial involvement was that he didn’t know why he was going on this mission.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that this is a matter for argument. I don’t think that anything material turns on that really.
MR WOLMARANS: As you please, Mr Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: For the record perhaps I could indicate here that at the, initially at the start of his evidence, he said, Dlamini, who came to my place was telling me it was the day for Zulu to be killed. That was his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you have got what on the face of it appears to be a difference.
CHAIRPERSON: But when you look at the overall picture, the fact of the matter is that he accompanied them because he knew that he was going to be killed.
MR WOLMARANS: Yes Mr Chairperson. Now, Mr Thusi you also told the Committee in reply to a question by Mr Wills, that you had heard that Zulu was an ANC supporter. Can we infer from that that at the time you yourself were not sure that he was in fact an ANC supporter?
MR THUSI: As I’ve already explained that I would sometimes hear from Mr Mzemela that Mr Zulu was an ANC supporter. Mr Mzemela used to tell me but I personally have never gathered such information except for the information I got from Mr Mzemela.
MR WOLMARANS: Would you have accompanied this group of persons regardless of whether he was an ANC supporter or not?
MR THUSI: I did mention in my Affidavit that at that time the way I hated ANC, I was going to go and do anything against ANC supporters. That’s why I went with them to Mr Zulu’s house, because I’ve heard that he was an ANC supporter.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, my question is, regardless of whether he was an ANC supporter or not, would you have still gone with to kill him?
CHAIRPERSON: What is the significance of that question? Are you going to suggest that he wasn’t an ANC member?
MR WOLMARANS: No, Mr Chairperson, it goes to whether this was really a politically motivated murder or not.
CHAIRPERSON: If somebody for whom he works and who is highly placed in the government says to him that Zulu is an ANC man, he accepts the word of that person because he is a highly placed government official and he takes part in this occurrence. He hasn’t seen Zulu carrying an ANC membership card and has no personal knowledge, so he goes because he’s told this is an ANC chap. Now, you’re asking him, if you were told that he is not an ANC man, would you still have gone to kill him. Is that the effect of your question?
MR WOLMARANS: That would be the effect of the question, I withdraw the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. If nothing was said to you and no question was made about Zulu being an ANC at all and you were told let’s go and kill Zulu, and you knew nothing about the man, would you have gone and killed him?
MR THUSI: I wasn’t going to be part and parcel of his death because there I wouldn’t have a reason to kill him.
ADV SANDI: Mr Wolmarans, just one thing on this.
Mr Thusi, did you know who they were talking about when they mentioned this name, Mr Zulu? Mr Zulu, was he someone you had seen before?
MR THUSI: Yes, I knew Mr Zulu. He was a man with a beard.
ADV SANDI: Besides his beard, what else did you know about him?
MR THUSI: Even though I cannot remember very well, but I think he was driving a Honda or a Toyota Corolla, cream white, I’m not certain, I don’t remember very well whether it was a Toyota Corolla or a Honda, but I knew him, I could see him, I knew him.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi did you at any time witness or overhear Mr Mzemela and Prince Gideon Zulu in conversation about anything?
MR THUSI: When you say about anything, I don’t know what you’re referring, whether you’re referring about family affairs or politics, or whatsoever. If you could please clarify this to me.
MR WOLMARANS: What I’d like to know is, were you privy to any meetings between Mzemela and Prince Gideon Zulu?
MR THUSI: Let me just clarify one thing. These were the people who were far much senior than I was. I couldn’t hold any meeting with these people, the only thing I will do, they will come with instructions and give me a certain instruction and I would follow that instruction but I will never have a meeting with them.
MR WOLMARANS: I’m not suggesting that the meeting was between yourself and them, but were you present at meetings which took place between Prince Gideon Zulu and Mr Mzemela where perhaps matters such as the killing of Mr Petrus Zulu was discussed?
MR THUSI: What I will clarify is that Mr Robert Mzemela was chatting with me, it wasn’t a meeting and Gideon wasn’t there.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Thusi, my question is ¼(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think that covers the question really. You’re expecting a matter of significance to be discussed between Gideon Zulu and Mzemela and you think that it is discussed in the presence of this individual and he says all knew is Mzemela mentioning to him while chatting to him, that this is what is intended and that is to get rid of Zulu.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Chairperson, its possible that he may have overheard such a conversation between the two individuals. I just want to establish ¼(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Were you present at any private conversations between Mzemela and Gideon Zulu?
MR THUSI: I would like to apologise to the Chairman and I would like to tell the Attorney that he is referring things that I don’t know and he wants me to say things that I don’t know. I’ve said I’ve never seen them and my apology there.
MR WOLMARANS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WOLMARANS
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions to ask on behalf of the dependents? You’re not appearing for the Zulu family. No I know you are. I’m talking to Counsel who is appearing for the victims and the dependents of the other victims. I am affording
you an opportunity, if there are questions you wish to put. They do not impact on your case, I know.
MS JELAL: No, Mr Chairman, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you anything to ask?
MS WILLIAMS: No, Mr Chairman, Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Just one issue, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Thusi, you had the interview with Stephanie Muller, that was interpreted. You spoke in Zulu, through an interpreter, who is a prison warder, and she made certain records, is that correct?
MR THUSI: Yes, that’s correct.
MR WILLS: At any stage did Ms Muller or anybody, for that matter, come back and ask you, and show you the written document and say to you, ask you to read through that document and say is this a correct transcript of what we spoke about?
MR THUSI: No, they didn’t do that, they said they were in a hurry.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Mr Wills, I notice that the applicant is in prison uniform and it has transpired from his evidence that he was never tried and convicted for these offences. That would be for something else I take it?
MR WILLS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I think at paragraph 31 of his Application, he’s been convicted of certain incidents which fell outside the cutoff date and he’s therefore not applying for amnesty in respect of those incidents. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to him? Anything further?
MR WILLS: That is the case for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thusi, thank you very much. You are excused.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I’m not sure, is there any other evidence or can I argue at this stage? I am prepared to argue at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you’re, right I should have asked. Are you leading any evidence at all?
MS WILLIAMS: No, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I’m talking to Ms Mtanga.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you on behalf of the dependents of the
Richmond case, leading any evidence?
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Chairperson, I had intended leading certain evidence regarding the incident at Ulundi. In the light of the evidence that has been tendered up to now, I’d like to reconsider my position and to ask the Committee for an indulgence that I may confer with the widow of the deceased and decide whether to subject her to it.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, you’re entitled to that. You’ll call us as soon as you’re ready?
MR WOLMARANS: Yes Mr Chairperson. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We’ll step down for a short while to enable Counsel to consult his client.
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Chairperson, I’m indebted to the Committee for the indulgence granted to me. Mr Chairperson, the position is that I am not going to call any evidence. However I have discussed the matter with my learned colleague, Mr Wills, for the applicant. There’s just one matter that we’d like to place on record and that is that Mrs Zulu was injured during the attack. She sustained a gunshot wound to the head and can therefore be regarded as a victim of the attack and a person who was inside
the house at the time, a Nomuso Zulu also sustained gunshot wounds.
CHAIRPERSON: Any relative of the deceased?
MR WOLMARANS: Mr Chairperson I don’t, I’m not absolutely certain, but I don’t think she was a relative, she was the servant of Mrs Zulu at the time, so I doubt very much whether she was in fact a relative.
MR WOLMARANS: She was also injured. She sustained a gunshot wound.
CHAIRPERSON: Has she recovered?
MR WOLMARANS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, she has recovered. Both have recovered from their injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: I’m glad you are placing this information before us because it was my intention to ask Counsel for the applicant as to precisely what offences his client was applying amnesty for. Up to now we are left with the picture that he’s applying for amnesty for the death of Zulu only.
MR WOLMARANS: That is the impression I have gained. He may not have been aware of the fact that there were other persons who may have been injured during the attack.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand. It’s more than likely that that is so.
MR WOLMARANS: Then that concludes any further submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga is there any difficulty in the notion that Mrs Zulu and Namuso Zulu would be described as people who were victims of this attack and if there is any chance or prospect of reparation, that they might be entitled to some reparation?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson if the Committee makes a finding that the applicant committee ¼(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my question to you is there any difficulty in that regard?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Wills.
MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. May I commence with argument?
MR WILLS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson I submit that the applicant has made out a case for amnesty. I submit that both acts were politically motivated and that he has, to the best of his ability, made full disclosure in relation to the facts surrounding those incidents.
Dealing with the full disclosure aspect. First, Mr Chairperson, I submit that the Committee, with respect, can take note of the fact that the applicant is not serving a sentence, is not convicted, he hasn’t been questioned in any way in regard to either of these incidents, therefore I can see, with respect, no reason for him to come forward and to make submissions in respect of incidents that he knows nothing about, or no reason for him to fabricate in any way whatsoever. In fact it’s only through his disclosures before the Committee that possibly the victims would know of his involvement in these incidents. As far as the police are concerned, the Richmond attack is a closed case because certain people have been convicted, which don’t include the Applicant. In other words there is no benefit for the Applicant to wrongfully disclose.
I submit that there might have been certain aspects of his evidence that weren’t clear and possibly even there may be mistake in that, I’m not sure on that Mr Chairperson, but I submit that this would not be intentional and that he has made an endeavour, to the best of his recollection, to relay or relate the events as he remembered them.
The contradictions that appear from the recording of an interview held with him by Stephanie Muller, I submit, not much turns on that. I submit that one, particularly as a lawyer and a practitioner, can take note of the fact that the first draft of an affidavit is often changed and often quite material mistakes are made in the first draft and changed when going through it on the second occasion. There is any number of reasons as to why that might not be accurate and I submit the one that the applicant gave is one of those reasons and that it might have been an interpretation error. And again on that, there would be no reason for him to say that he was armed on one occasion and not armed on the other. It wouldn’t take him further. Why even bother to apply for amnesty in the first place? I submit that nothing turns on that.
Again, the issue of the yard, whether it is inside the house or outside the house, Mr Chairman I submit
CHAIRPERSON: One can understand that is a matter of terminology sometimes in the African languages.
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson, but again the same argument is that there'd be no reason for him to lie on this point, if he was applying for amnesty in the first instance.
As regards the political motivation Mr Chairperson, I submit that particularly in regard to the Richmond incident, here we’re dealing with a context of quite, of what has been described by many commentators as a low intensity civil war going on for over an extended period between the ANC and the IFP. I submit as regards the motivation, he was quite clear on that, in that he was motivated to rid the area of the ANC and the Communists. It must have been planned. His evidence tacitly suggests that there must have been some agreement at least between Paulus Vezi who was the leader from Phateni and his brother who was the leader from his area and they have orchestrated this thing. Whilst there’s no specific mention of orders, I think again one can read into the evidence that orders were in essence given in that the two groups got together, the leader of the group told the followers to join and they did join and the attacks went ahead.
It’s my submission in regard to the Zulu murder than an order, in a sense, was also issued in that regard. Here you have a very senior IFP politician mentioning to the applicant that the deceased was an ANC member. That obviously would have painted that individual in a very bad light, particularly in the mind of the Applicant who’d been trained as his Affidavit indicates clearly, to hate the ANC members and in fact been trained to kill them.
Then a notorious hit squad member, by the name of Zwele Dlamini, who’s regarded highly by the Applicant because of his training and his training in the Caprivi specifically, comes to his house and says, accompany me on this mission, and I think the Committee can take note of the fact that, when, in this context, there isn’t very much of a choice for the applicant, he goes along, it is part of the struggle and in that sense he obeyed orders and went along as directed.
I submit that in the above regards, that political motive has been clearly established and that the Applicant has done his best to fully disclose. The incidents, particularly the Richmond incident, occurred sometime ago, 1991, some eight years ago almost, therefore one cannot expect his memory to be as sharp as it might have been.
I submit that his case has been made out and respectfully request that the Committee grant him amnesty in respect of the murders and the attempted murders as indicated and I can, if the Committee wishes me to, I can go through those counts again, but essentially the counts we led in evidence earlier in relation to the indictment which appears in the second bundle. I don’t think that, unless the Committee will require me to do so,
CHAIRPERSON: No, we’ve got that.
MR WILLS: You’ve got those. And then also for the unlawful possession of an AK47 machine rifle in relation to that offence and ammunition for that and then for the murder of Mr Zulu and for the attempted murder of the two victims that my colleague Mr Wolmarans has alluded to.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Wills, could you perhaps make submissions on the attempted murder of the two other persons? Do we not perhaps have a difficulty in that your client testified that he went there because he was going to kill Mr Zulu. How would one come to some sort of common purpose conclusion there?
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Committee Member. I would submit that there’s at least dolus eventualis in that the Applicant, having had the experience particularly as he relayed in relation to the Richmond issue where houses were attacked, that certain people in the vicinity were likely, could reasonably be killed and that he participated in an incident and was reckless as to whether or not those people were in fact injured. It’s on that basis that I make that submission.
MR WOLMARANS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, my learned colleague has alluded to the contradictions which have been highlighted. How the Committee deals with those in deciding whether a full disclosure has been made is up to the Committee. If the Committee regards that as being of a material nature, then the Committee may have some difficulty in deciding whether a full disclosure has been made.
One of the aspects which was not properly dealt with, I would submit, is the question of the number of people who took part in the attack on the Zulu household. In his application the Applicant mentions four people, and creates the impression, certainly in my mind, that it was a very small group of persons who took part in this murderous attack. And yet in his evidence he talks about 15 people who took part in the attack. There is ..(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think to say that they took part in the attack is perhaps putting it too strongly, isn’t it.
MR WOLMARANS: Yes, perhaps it is Chairperson, but they were part of the group who certainly, had the need arisen, would have then taken part in defending those who were actually conducting the killing itself.
CHAIRPERSON: He certainly had made common purpose because he was serving a purpose there.
MR WOLMARANS: That is so Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: He was on guard duty to alert his friend in the event of the police arriving, it would seem. He was as much part of the scene as the other two who were inside the house,
CHAIRPERSON: Who did the shooting.
MR WOLMARANS: My submission is only that there seems to be a discrepancy as to how many people were involved and how many people went there. Other than what I have said, save to say that on the face of it, it certainly appears that this was a politically motivated murder. I leave the decision as to whether the Applicant should be granted amnesty in respect of the offences for which he has applied, in the hands of the Committee. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have you, on behalf of the dependents of the Richmond killing, anything to say?
MS JELAL IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I will make a closing statement at this time. It is my instructions to submit that the victims do not oppose the application for amnesty. They are quite satisfied that the requirements for political motivation and disclosure, to the best of the Applicant’s knowledge, has been made.
However the question of proportionality with regard to the offences committed and whether it was the modus operandi of the IFP to kill people and to behave in that fashion, is still questionable. Mr Chairman, in the circumstances, the victims leave the ultimate decision to be made by the Commission.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga, have you anything to say?
MS MTANGA: I am not opposing the application Chairperson and I am also not making any submission. I leave the matter to the hands of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Williams, you had a very lengthy speech which you wrote out last night to deliver today. You can start.
MS WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. We are not opposing the amnesty application, we leave it in the hands of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your assistance and co-operation. It is unfortunate that sometimes hiccups occur in the course of hearings that tend to delay hearings and one must endeavour to try and avoid these hiccups.
The Committee will consider the evidence in this matter and in due course notify the dependents of the victims and the Applicant of the outcome of this application.
The Committee will now adjourn till tomorrow morning. Before doing so, Ms Mtanga are you in a position us what is on the menu for tomorrow?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, tomorrow we will be hearing the amnesty application of Mr Shangase. He is the only applicant in the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: And what time do you propose that we start?
MS MTANGA: Half past Nine Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Have Counsel been notified? Are you appearing, Mr Wills, in that matter?
MR WILLS: Yes thank you Mr Chairman, I’m appearing for an implicated party.
CHAIRPERSON: God bless you. You’re appearing for the implicated people?
MR WILLS: One particular person, a Mr Romeo Mbamba.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Who’s appearing for the applicant?
MS WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I’m appearing on behalf of one of the implicated persons, Mrs Mbuyazi. I think Mr Samuel is appearing on behalf of the Applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you know whether the Dependents are being represented?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson I think they are. I have just forgotten the name of their representative.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Will you make sure that Counsel will be notified that we’ll make a beginning as early as half past nine? Will you make sure of this?
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, I will adjourn now and resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.