DAY : 7

CHAIRPERSON: During the course of this hearing an application for my recusal was launched. Mr Hattingh who appears for certain potential victims indicated that he was bringing the application on behalf of a number of clients, in their capacities as victims or next of kin of persons who had died in the actions for which the applicants apply for amnesty.

In his argument, Mr Hattingh broadly set out the law relating to the consideration of the recusal of a presiding officer. In my view he set it out correctly and I don't think it necessary to indulge in any discussion thereon. In particular he pointed out that really, it was what the litigants themselves felt that was important.

Generally there must exist a reasonable suspicion of bias on the part of the person sought to be recused for such recusal action therefore to be justified. However, contrary to suggestion, the test must be an objective one. It is significant that Mr Hattingh was at pains to point out that his submissions were based on the instructions of his clients and were made in fact in terms of such instructions.

It will be well to point out at this stage that the litigants perceptions must also be reasonable. It follows therefore that it has nothing to do with emotions, but rather whether their perceptions were reasonable in the circumstances.

He submitted that the feeling of his clients was that I was assisting the applicants and really in effect shaping their evidence for them. He referred to only one possible example, namely that I pointed out to him that the applicant completed the original application form in a language that he was not proficient in, that was English. It was done when he was confronted with the contents or parts of the contents of that application.

In my view any presiding officer is duty-bound to point out such matters when any witness is potentially in a prejudicial position as a result of such anomalies. Secondly, it was submitted the Committee was not trying to obtain a full picture of the application. On this issue I'm not quite certain whether it was intended to suggest that there was a duty on the Amnesty Committee to investigative work. At best in my view, that is what was intended.

Lastly, it was submitted that cross-examination of the applicant was curtailed, especially in not allowing a proposition related to an irrelevant event to be put to the witness. It seems also that the globary effect of all this has given rise to the dissatisfaction, hence the application.

I wish to point out that I have on more than one occasion both privately and in public requested all representatives to conduct this hearing in such a manner such as to make the atmosphere conducive to reconciliation of people and parties who hitherto have been on opposing fronts. This indeed in my view is the purpose of the Act and consequently the aim of such hearings.

I am afraid that thusfar this has not happened in certain quarters. Indeed the adversarial manner in which certain sections of the hearing has been conducted seems to have caused the wrong type of expectation by the various interested parties and has therefore created exactly what the Act intended to avoid.

In my view it is precisely this that has led to this application. When any witness is confronted with issues which carries with it a risk of prejudice, it is the duty of the presiding officer to intervene and put the matter into proper perspective. Matters such as that often happen at hearings. This is exactly what happened in respect of the incident that had been referred to as an example of the alleged shaping of the applicant's evidence. It is time the purpose of the Act is grasped.

I wish to point out that this is not a criminal matter or a civil matter but an unusual hearing designed to reconcile the people and not to allow a replay of any trial which may have preceded it. We are not here to score points. If any interested party is here to score point then he or she is in the wrong forum.

Since the beginning of the hearing it has been obvious that the public has been divided. I'm not too sure whether such divisions are based on political affiliations or geographical differences or perhaps even cultural. Be that as it may, I want to appeal to all present to desist from creating an atmosphere of division particularly in this hearing. For example when perceived points are scored there seems to be a tendency to applaud. We are not in this hearing for that purpose.

On the other hand, if evidence is led that certain sections of the public are not happy to hear or disagree with, there's a tendency to mumble as loudly as possible to display the dissatisfaction. That type of behaviour, and I include both applauding and mumbling, does not help the process. That is what I mean by grasping the purpose and the intention of the process and Act.

If after all is said and done, we do not want to destroy this country and we want to live with each other as we should have even before apartheid, then we can only attain that type of life when we come to terms with what has happened and we can reconcile each other with the events and with each other.

It is also not the function of this Committee to indulge in full-scale investigation as it seems is expected of us. This is done by other Committees attached to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. More importantly, if certain interested parties with to place before us as a Committee, certain information, the gathering of such information is expected to be done by the different representatives who choose to place that particular information before us. After all that is what they are here for.

Lastly, the cross-examination of an irrelevant matter is not allowed because of the norms and practices which have developed over the judicial years and judicial history of this country. It is not unknown to our judicial system. While this forum may not strictly be described as a judicial forum, the rule I have referred to is in my view not out of place in this forum.

Consequently, none of the issues raised singularly or together seem to justify the application. As I have mentioned, I can only hope that the interested parties have taken to heart what I have said and not to draw the Committee into their squabbles.

In the result the application is refused.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, the next applicant is Mbokane. He will be testifying in Zulu.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, before we proceed with the new applicant today, perhaps I could just remind you of the position of Mr Khaba and Mr Gushu, where Mr Khaba implicated Mr Gushu. The whole issue was raised with Mr Black on Friday and that there's something of the past applicants that we still have to clarify and make sure of.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear what you said Mr, I'm sorry.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, the issue of Mr Khaba and Mr Gushu. Mr Black - Mr Chairman asked Mr Black on Friday to just clarify the issue where Mr Khaba implicated Mr Gushu with regard to an incident where Mr Gushu did not make application for that particular incident. I think just before we carry on we just have to clarity that issue.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what I did Mr Hattingh, if you remember correctly, I pointed out what I thought was of potential conflict. I'm sure everybody understands the implications of that conflict. I think it's for Mr Black to decide what he wants to do. It carries with it immense implications I would think and I don't think there's anything more I can say but to draw his attention to this issues. If he chooses to carry on like that he will run into trouble at some time or other.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, for the information of the Committee, I did consult with Mr Gushu and Khaba about this issue. I can recall Mr Khaba if necessary to clarify the issue but I've been given to understand that there's another applicant who was present when the instruction was given and that the issue would then be clarified.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I have drawn your attention to it. I don't the details, that is why I can't, and I don't intend to advise you either way. I think you're experienced enough to decide what can happen, what will not happen and you have the particular information to decide what to do.

MR BLACK: I can just request that my instructions, or I'm given to understand that the matter will be clarified in the course of the hearing but if not, I may well have to recall Mr Khaba just to explain the situation, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who are you calling now?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, this is Mr Mbokane, the third applicant which appears on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbokane, what language would you prefer to speak?

MR MBOKANE: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

L P MBOKANE: (sworn states)

MR BLACK: Thank you. Mr Chairman, this applicant, Mr Mbokane, is applying for amnesty in respect of, if I may broadly refer to them as the events which took place at the Giwi Breyten Construction Compound(?) in Evander. He was convicted of the offences of murder, attempted murder and two attempted robberies. These convictions will appear on page 233 of the record, Volume 1, and the charge sheet is on page 216.

CHAIRPERSON: He applies for amnesty in respect of murder, the murder of whom?

MR BLACK: This is the Giwi Breyten incident. That is the murder of Mr de Breyten, the attempted murder on Mr Fourie and then I assume that the two counts of attempted robbery of which he was convicted possibly relate to the tying up of the two security guards. Mr Gushu has already testified to that incident and confirmed the fact that this applicant was present at the time the incident took place.

Mr Chairman, before we get to the actual events as it were, I need to clear up a few preliminary issues.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BLACK: The Judgment is on page 233, that's the final conclusion.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: And the charge sheet appears on page 216. He was convicted of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the charge sheet.

Mr Chairman, the application, the original application which was submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, appears on page 58 of Volume 1. I need to clarify a few issues relating to that particular application form in order to avoid any, or to curtail the proceedings.

May I proceed Mr Chairman?

EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Mbokane, if you look at page 58 of Volume 1 which is in front of you there, this is an application form which was submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in terms of which you applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Now who completed this form?

MR MBOKANE: It's my co-inmates in Barbeton Prison.

MR BLACK: So the handwriting which appears on this form, is that your hand writing?

MR MBOKANE: It's my co-inmates handwriting.

MR BLACK: Now, did you tell your inmate, your co-inmate as it were, the full story of what happened and Giwi Breyten?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct, I did.

MR BLACK: And did you - is that including the shooting of Mr de Bruyn and the tying of the security officers etc?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I explained to him even with regard to - I explained to him with regard to the attempted murder but not the actual murder but I did explain in such a manner that he would believe me with regard to what I did but I think he filled the form wrongly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbokane, I'm sure you can talk louder, not so?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You see those policemen there sitting in the back?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Talk loud enough so they can hear you.

MR MBOKANE: Okay.

MR BLACK: Let's just - I just want to repeat, did you tell your co-inmate that Mr de Bruyn was killed and that there was and that Mr Fourie was wounded and that the two security guards were tied up?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did tell him that one of them was injured and the other one was killed, but I did explain to him that I never took part in any shooting and I was never charged with murder but he chose to write whatever he wrote.

MR BLACK: So this business of saying that the acts in respect of which you applying, it's got here:

Did you tell him to write "poging tot moord", or who, how did it come about that that was written down?

MR MBOKANE: I think because I told him with regard to the attempted murders, probably he decided to write it because I had not been filled in or told as to how to fill in the form properly.

MR BLACK: So when this form was filled in did you have the assistance of any lawyer or did anyone explain the meaning of these paragraphs that you had to fill in?

MR MBOKANE: No, nobody was assisting me in filling in the form.

MR BLACK: Now you go on in the form and you refer to, there's a name of a victim and you refer to a Fourie, is that also a thing that was filled in by this co-inmate of yours?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, everything that is contained herein was filled in by my co-inmate.

MR BLACK: And did you tell your co-inmate that a Mr de Bruyn was killed at the shooting?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did.

MR BLACK: Because I see he's got there:

And if you look at page 60 of that, did you tell your co-inmate that you were acting on behalf of the ANC and on the orders of Mzwandile Gushu?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did.

MR BLACK: If you page to page 61 of Volume 1, you got page 61?

MR MBOKANE: Yes.

MR BLACK: That is the beginning of a supplementary statement, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: If you page to page 67 of that statement, if you look at the bottom of that page, is that your signature which appears on that page?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: And do you confirm that what is contained in this statement, page 61 to 67, is true and correct?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I think that is true and correct even though I didn't have the opportunity to read through it.

MR BLACK: Well did you go through - is everything ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: So why do you say it's true and correct if you haven't read through it?

MR MBOKANE: I do believe whatever is written in there is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, has the contents of that documents not been interpreted or gone through with the applicant?

MR BLACK: Yes, I can confirm that the applicant has in fact read this statement and he has gone through it, so I can clarify perhaps what he is trying to get at. I think at the time of signing it he didn't.

Have you read this statement?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I read the statement.

MR BLACK: Now if you look at page 66 of that statement, you drew to my attention that there was something that wasn't correct on that.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is true.

MR BLACK: Can you tell the Committee what is not quite accurately recorded on that statement?

MR MBOKANE: I realised later on that I had said I am applying for amnesty with regard to attempted murder and I had to apply with regard every matter in Giwi Breyten. I would like to say that I am applying for amnesty with regard to murder, attempted murder as well as robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, what sentence did you get for all of those?

MR MBOKANE: 18 years.

MR BLACK: Right. So where it stands there I just want to correct, where it stands on the first top paragraph 6 of page 66 where it says that you received a period of 18 years imprisonment for the convictions of murder, attempted murder and unlawful possession of firearms, that that is not entirely correct? The factual situation is, and it appears from the Judgment, that you received conviction for murder, attempted murder and two attempted robberies, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Now let's page back to page 62. If we can just as a background, as your personal background and I don't think there's anything controversial in here. When we get to the actual events you can tell the Committee in your own words what took place, but is it correct that you were born at Breyten on the 6th of September 1969 and you passed standard six at school?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You state here further that your younger brother, James Mbokane was an active member of the ANC in the Secunda/Ermelo area and during 1985 and at Secunda he was killed by members of the Inkatha together with the Black Cats gang members?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You say that you've always supported the African National Congress and in 1986 you became an active member of the self-defence units at Secunda?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: We've already heard evidence as to the fact that various SDU's as they were called, were established at communities throughout the country as a policy of the African National Congress and one of their principal purposes was to defend the homes and members of communities being attacked by then perceived to be government agents and person trying to oppress the African Congress, is that correct, more or less?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: Page over to page 63 please. On page 63, Sub-Section (c) you say that you are seeking amnesty in respect of the events which occurred at the Giwi Breyten Construction Compound at Evander on or about the 6th of July 1992, okay?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Then you proceed at the bottom there at paragraph 3, you say you'll give outline of the events which led up to and which took place at the Evander Compound, see that?

MR MBOKANE: Yes.

MR BLACK: On page 64 you then proceed to give an outline of the events which led up to the actual confrontation which took place at the Giwi Compound. Now in your own words Mr Mbokane, could you please tell the Committee, from the beginning, how it came about that you went to the Giwi Compound.

MR MBOKANE: We had received a message that Giwi there were training members of the IFP as well as the Black Chain. The were being trained by the owners of the compound and there were guns at the compound. I passed the message on to my commander, that is Mzwandile Gushu. He is the one that took the decision that we should go there with the aim of retrieving or confiscating the guns, but not with the intention of killing.

MR BLACK: Sorry Mr Mbokane, when you say you received a message, did you make any efforts to verify this? Did you go and find out the story that you, the message that you heard, was it true or not, did you try and make any attempt to find out?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did try, I made three attempts.

MR BLACK: Was it you alone or what?

MR MBOKANE: There were two of us.

MR BLACK: Who, who? Who was it?

MR MBOKANE: It was myself and Brian Mlungisi Gombela.

MR BLACK: And what did you find out?

MR MBOKANE: When we got there we realised that there were two security guards who were armed. Even though we were not able to see inside at that stage because there was a prefabricated fence that blocked out view. We went back to Gushu to notify him that we saw some people who had guns but we were not able to gain entry and see as to whether there was training going on inside.

The most important fact for us was to retrieve the guns because we had been told that when they come back they were going to attack the Mandela Squatter Camp, and because we did not have any arms we decided to go and get those arms that they were using to train them.

MR BLACK: When you say: "they were going to attack the Mandela Squatter Camp", who is: "they"? Who are you referring to when you say: "they were going to attack the Mandela Squatter Camp"?

MR MBOKANE: They were the members of the IFP as well as the Black Chains.

MR BLACK: Now you reported your findings to Mzwandile Gushu, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: I think it's now common cause that Mr Gushu then was the MK commander?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that common cause?

MR BLACK: I don't think - he's given his evidence ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that's not common cause Mr Black, unless there's an agreement here.

MR BLACK: Just simply, it wasn't challenged that he was an MK commander but let's put it this way:

Who was your commander at that time?

MR MBOKANE: It was Mzwandile Gushu.

MR BLACK: Right. Now when you reported to him what happened next?

MR MBOKANE: He told us that we should make an attempt to get those arms.

MR BLACK: Right. Just carry on, what took place then?

MR MBOKANE: When we got there we disarmed the two security guards and we made them lie down on the ground. Gushu had a .38 special ...[intervention]

MR BLACK: Before you go further, when you say: "we", who is: "we"?

MR MBOKANE: Mlungisi Gombela, myself as well as Mzwandile Gushu.

MR BLACK: Were you armed?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is myself and Mzwandile Gushu.

MR BLACK: What were you armed with?

MR MBOKANE: I had a .38 revolver, Gushu had an AK47 with.

MR BLACK: When you arrived at the compound, what took place there?

MR MBOKANE: When we got there there were two black security guys. We made them lie on the ground and Gushu directed me to tie their hands whilst they were lying on the ground.

After that we saw a car approaching and which was driven by one white security guy and there was another one on the passenger seat. Gushu went to open the gate and we also wanted to get hold of them. I think they suspected that there was something amiss and they reversed the car without entering into the yard and they started shooting towards our direction. That is when Mzwandile Gushu left the gate and went inside the yard and took his AK47 and he fired back.

He was trying to clear the way for us to be able to run out. One got injured and the other one got killed. As we were trying to flee the area or the place, the other one shot Mzwandile Gushu on the leg and Mzwandile Gushu fell and he also ran away.

MR BLACK: After this incident, you go on to say that about a week afterwards members of the Murder and Robbery Squad came to your house in Secunda and you were arrested and taken to the Middelburg Police Station, is that so?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You go on further to say that you were tortured, could you just tell the Committee briefly about the torturing?

MR MBOKANE: When we got to the Middelburg Police Station the members of the Murder and Robbery Squad started assaulting us and they also took us to another place called Loskop Dam. It was myself and Mzwandile. They left us there.

There were poles as wide as this table as I'm pointing and they tied me left foot to the pole as well as the hand. They did the same with the right hand and the right foot and they started assaulting us on the ribs and they forced us to make statements.

We were also electrocuted. Our private parts were also subjected to some electrocution. That is what happened at Loskop Dam.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now you say that you and Mr Gombela stood trial separately from your MK Commander, Gushu and you stood trial at the Middelburg High Court and you were sentenced to a period of 18 years imprisonment.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: If you look at page 66 of that document, you go on, and you were found guilty and that's a fact, that you were found guilty of murder, attempted murder and two counts of attempted robbery.

You go on in paragraph 3.7 of that document, you say that during the course of the events at the Giwi Breyten Compound you didn't shoot, you didn't fire any shots.

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Who did the shooting there from as far as your group was concerned?

MR MBOKANE: It was my Commander, Mzwandile Gushu.

MR BLACK: It's been explained to you now that because you were part of that group which resulted in the death of Mr de Bruyn, you are also guilty of murder of Mr de Bruyn, do you understand that?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do understand.

MR BLACK: Do you accept the responsibility that you are guilty of the murder of Mr de Bruyn?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do accept that.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Black, just a moment.

Why did you not also shoot at these people?

MR MBOKANE: When Mzwandile arrived, took the gun and started shooting. My gun was still in the holster and I realised that the other one had already fallen or had died. The other one had disappeared, so I could not continue shooting because our enemies, the other one was out of sight and the other one was already down on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have shot if you had an opportunity?

MR MBOKANE: Probably so.

MR BLACK: Now when you went to the Giwi Breyten Compound, can you tell, did you go there for personal reasons or personal gain?

MR MBOKANE: No, that is not so.

MR BLACK: Can you tell the Committee why you went there?

MR MBOKANE: The reason was to go and retrieve some firearms so as to protect the community at Embalentle because we did not have any guns as well as ammunition because they would be confiscated by the police and given to the enemies, so we decided to go there and get some guns in order to be able to protect the community. Our aims were not to kill people, our aim was to take the guns forcefully.

MR BLACK: Did you go there on your own accord? In other words, did you yourself decided to go there?

MR MBOKANE: No, I did not go on my own accord, I had received an instruction from my commander to do so.

MR BLACK: Now if we speed things up a little bit, you were convicted in the High Court, you stood trial, do you recall that? And you were convicted.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do.

MR BLACK: And at the trial your were represented by, your legal representative was what they called a pro deo counsel, an advocate appointed by the state, according to you.

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: And to give the Committee a complete picture, you were convicted as a result and only on the evidence relating to a pointing out.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: And from the papers which we've got before us it appears that you did tell the Judge that you were tortured and forced to make these pointing outs.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did.

MR BLACK: Now the torturing which you referred to earlier, did that take place before or after the pointing outs?

MR MBOKANE: Before the pointing out.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, it had to if it was a result of torture that he made the pointing out, isn't it?

MR BLACK: No, I'm just referring to the specific torturing at the Loskop Dam, whether that took place before or after.

And the words which were written down and were handed up to court as part of the pointing out statements, were those your words which appeared on the pointing out statement which was handed up to court?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, the words were mine.

MR BLACK: That appeared on the pointing out statement that was handed up to court?

MR MBOKANE: Are you referring to the words or the names? That is, my personal names or the words?

MR BLACK: I'm referring to the statements which were written down on the pointing out statement which was then handed up to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You remember you made pointings out?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume there were certain explanations that you gave when you made certain pointings out, correct?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Now your advocate is referring to those explanations.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: Now when you pointed out, something was written down by the people accompanying you at the pointing out, is that so?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, that is correct

MR BLACK: Now, what was written down there as an explanation, were they your words, did they come from you or from, what were they?

MR MBOKANE: These were my own words, they came from me but not voluntarily. I was actually forced to say certain things.

MR BLACK: Okay. To wind up, you confirmed you are applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr de Bruyn, the attempted on Mr Fourie and the two counts of attempted robbery for which you received a conviction.

MR MBOKANE: That is so.

MR BLACK: Thank you, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel?

MR PATEL: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

MR KEMP: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I do not represent anyone with regard to this incident ...[indistinct], however I would just briefly like to put a few questions with regard to the reconnaissance actions that they took and what they found with regard to the Black Chain or the Black Cats, and the preparations to be made for an attack on the Mandela Squatter Camp because that in fact forms part of the background of events that took place at the time in this area.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the purpose of the questions?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, the motives and reasons for killing people who were pertinently members of the Black Cats gangs, victims Obed and Chris Ngwenya and Zwane, they were killed for a reason, decision were made to kill them because of the violent, their violent behaviour.

Now this evidence of training of Black Cat members at this institution and allegations that planning was made for an attack on the Mandela Squatter Camp, I would suggest also forms part of the general suggestion that the members or the people referred, the reasons for them being killed was that they were part of this violent behaviour during this period and in this area.

CHAIRPERSON: Your question assumes that it's possible that he's going to say that he knows who had been trained, namely Mr Ngwenya and others?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he says he doesn't know then that would be the end of the issues?

MR HATTINGH: I merely would wish to make inquiries with regard to what he found on visiting the compound and the involvement of the IFP members and the Black Cats.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I'm just concerned about the relevance of it, so let's see how you go about it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Mbokane, just to clarify the issue of your going on a reconnaissance mission to the Giwi Breyten on the days preceding the actual events for which you make application for amnesty, as I understand your evidence you went there but you did not get access to the terrain itself, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the only people you saw there with arms were the security guards, is that correct, at the gate?

MR MBOKANE: I saw the security guards at the gate but there were people who were getting into the compound but I did not see what they were carrying.

MR HATTINGH: On what do you base the allegation that Black Cats, members of the Black Cats organisation as well as members of the IFP were being trained there and that they were planning an attack on the Mandela Squatter Camp? On what do you base those allegations?

MR MBOKANE: We had already heard from one of the members within our self-defence units.

MR HATTINGH: Nothing that you found at the compound when you went there yourself confirmed this information, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: I couldn't get into the compound because I was refused permission. Only people with permission were allowed in the compound.

MR HATTINGH: Is it further correct that nothing that you personally found at the compound confirmed the information that weapons in the possession of Black Cats or IFP members were being stored at the compound?

MR MBOKANE: I suspected that there were such a thing when I got there. We tried to gain entrance but we were refused permission. I suspected some of the people that were getting into the compound had indeed been involved in this.

MR HATTINGH: The people, Zwi Zwane, Chris Ngwenya, Obed Friday Nhlabathi, did you know them?

MR MBOKANE: No, I didn't know them.

MR HATTINGH: Bongani Malinga and Advice Gwala?

MR MBOKANE: I knew Advice Gwala, not Bongani Malinga.

MR HATTINGH: Lastly just with regard to the ANC military command and the instructions that you received, were you aware of the fact that during the Groote Schuur Accord in 1990, the ANC decided to cease the armed struggle?

MR MBOKANE: No, I didn't know that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you personally receive any instructions from the ANC Command, from the Provincial or National level?

MR MBOKANE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: From whom?

MR MBOKANE: From Mzwandile.

MR HATTINGH: Is that Gushu?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, Gushu.

MR HATTINGH: Did you consider him to be from either Provincial or National Command of the ANC?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I think maybe there's a bit of a misunderstanding.

Did you ever receive direct instructions from the command, either at a Provincial or National level, not through somebody else, directly? Is that the import of your questions?

MR HATTINGH: I receive an instruction from my commander in the region.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that Gushu?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not being asked from whom you got the instruction, the question is whether at any time did you ever receive a direct instruction, either from the Provincial Command or the National Command?

MR MBOKANE: No, I do not have the permission to communicate with others except Mzwandile.

MR HATTINGH: As far as you were aware at the time, what was the policy of the ANC in terms of the command structure with which you dealt with at the time with regard to armed robberies to be committed on behalf of the ANC and in the furtherance of the political aims of the ANC?

MR MBOKANE: Would you please repeat the question?

MR HATTINGH: At the time of these incidents what did you perceive to be the position with regard to the policy of the ANC in respect of armed robberies to be committed, let's say for the purpose of arming SDU's?

MR MBOKANE: The one policy I know from our side was that we were fighting for stability and reconciliation but if a person was being attacked one had to defend oneself and if one didn't have any arms with which to defend oneself, one had to do something because we were attacked and we had no arms with which to defend ourselves. We therefore had to get hold of these arms from other people, to defend ourselves and the community.

MR HATTINGH: Was this a formal policy that you were being told about or was it just something that you gathered in the circumstances, that you were allowed to do that?

MR MBOKANE: I would say it was our policy, ourselves as the self-defence unit, having received this instruction from our commander, Mzwandile Gushu.

MR HATTINGH: Then lastly, Nkompela who did not stand trial with you with regard to the incidents at Giwi Breyten, what happened to him? Is he also an applicant at this hearing, or what happened to him?

MR MBOKANE: I would be telling a lie if I were to say I know something about him. It's been a long time since I saw him. I don't know what has become of him, I don't even know his whereabouts.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Sir.

Mr Mbokane, who is this person who signed, who completed the application form for you, your application for amnesty?

MR MBOKANE: Mandastole.

MR MAPOMA: Why did you ask him to do that for you?

MR MBOKANE: I realised that I would get confused and make mistakes.

MR MAPOMA: But weren't you able to write?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I can write but I had to be sure about this seeing that I had a form to fill in, that is why I requested him to assist.

MR MAPOMA: Then who signed the form?

MR MBOKANE: The signature is mine.

MR MAPOMA: Do you realise now that in this form you have not made an application for the murder of Mr de Bruyn?

MR MBOKANE: I was not aware of that, it's only now that I am realising that.

MR MAPOMA: I am also including this because it is part of one incident and my legal representative actually drew this to my attention.

MR MBOKANE: So are you suggesting that you only became aware that you should have applied for amnesty for de Bruyn after you were advised by your legal representative?

MR MBOKANE: Yes. I am actually asking for amnesty for all these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question is: When the form was completed by your friend, what was your intention, what should he have filled in?

MR MBOKANE: My intention was that we should the information about my involvement in the murder of de Bruyn, the attempted murder and robbery.

MR MAPOMA: In the supplementary statement which was prepared with the assistance your legal representative it does not appear that you've applied for amnesty for robbery or attempted robbery, do you realise that?

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR MAPOMA: Pardon Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR MAPOMA: Page 61 up to 67, Sir.

MR BLACK: To assist, I think the relevant page is page 66 as well as, with respect, paragraph 1 on page 63.

MR MAPOMA: Did you take any firearms from the construction?

MR MBOKANE: No, we failed in our attempt to get hold of firearms.

MR MAPOMA: You say that you had information that the IFP and the Black Chain gang were being trained there? Did you have any information about the Black Cats at all?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I did have information about the Black Cats.

MR MAPOMA: What information was it about the Black Cats?

MR MBOKANE: It was information to the effect that they too were being trained at the very same venue and they also keep some of their firearms there.

MR MAPOMA: To your information, was there any relationship between the Black Cats and the Black Chain gang?

MR MBOKANE: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: What was it?

MR MBOKANE: They were just one and the same thing, they were using the same modus operandi.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you went to the construction actually was your order given to you by Gushu? What is the precise order that he gave?

MR MBOKANE: The instruction was that when we get to the place we should try and get entry and we should persuade whoever we could manage to get hold to show us where the firearms were being hidden.

MR MAPOMA: Were you given any instructions to shoot when necessary?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, we already had received an instruction to that effect but only to defend ourselves.

MR MAPOMA: I'm asking this question because you say Gush gave you an instruction to go and confiscate the arms and not to kill anyone there. You say you never had an intention to kill anyone by going there, would you explain this?

MR MBOKANE: I can say it was not our intention to get into the place and start shooting, instead we would get hold of two people, persuade them to show us where the firearms cache was.

MR MAPOMA: Now that you did not shoot anyone, you did not kill anyone, do you associate yourself with what was done, that is the killing and the shooting?

MR MBOKANE: I was on the scene when this happened and I was included in this because I was present when the incident took place. I am in line with that because we were trying to defend ourselves. They are the ones who started shooting.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you. No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I did not receive direct instructions with regard to this person's evidence but he acted under Gushu who also then gave instructions to go to Mr Masebe, my client, in Piet Retief. If you will just allow me to ask him a few questions with regard to the instruction that he spoke of now, to go and steal weapons.

Sir, when your legal representative led you in your evidence you said that your instruction was to go and get weapons and you once again confirmed it when the person asked you the questions now, is that correct? Was that the instructions to go and get weapons?

MR MBOKANE: I was instructed to go and get hold of firearms at the place.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that the only instruction that you received?

MR MBOKANE: No, not any other instruction.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, why do you say in your amnesty application on page 59 that you went to this place to go and get money. You say under: State Political Objectives to be achieved:

Paragraph (b), exactly the same, you went there to go and get money for the self-defence unit and not to go and get ammunition of weapons.

MR MBOKANE: We went there precisely to try and get hold of arms. We would take money as well if we came across it because we needed money. Our movement did not have money. We were not getting any financial support. Money would have been of great help so that we could take people to hospital in cases of injury etc.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it was not your instruction from Gushu to go there to get or to go and steal money?

MR MBOKANE: No, that was not the instruction, the instruction was that we should try and get hold of these firearms.

MS VAN DER WALT: And why do you not say this in your application form. You were very careful that you did not want to fill it in yourself and you even asked someone else to do it in order for you not to make a mistake and now you make the biggest mistake because you do not say that you went there to steal weapons, why?

MR MBOKANE: I would like you to know that if one is doing something for oneself, one is sure about what one is doing but if somebody else is doing something for me, it's a different story.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to you it was then not the policy of the ANC to rob people for money, you went to go and get weapons in order to protect yourselves, is that correct?

MR MBOKANE: No, I repeat: We went there with an aim of getting hold of firearms, not money.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black?

MR BLACK: I have no re-examination Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mbokane, at the time when this form was filled in, did you have any court documentation with you? Did you have the documents setting out the charges at the time when you were tried? Did you have it with you in prison after you had been convicted?

MR MBOKANE: No.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you still remember what you were charged with when you filled in the form?

MR MBOKANE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you think about these charges when you filled in the form, the charges of robbery? Did you remember that you were charged with robbery?

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I remember I was charged for that.

ADV BOSMAN: And you remembered that you were charged with the possession of ammunition.

MR MBOKANE: Yes, I do remember but I do not remember that I was charged for being found in possession of firearms. What I remember is that I was charged for attempted robbery, attempted murder and murder.

ADV BOSMAN: So did you not think that the robbery should be mentioned in the form?

MR MBOKANE: Chairperson, may the speaker please repeat the question?

ADV BOSMAN: Did you not them remember that the robbery should also be mentioned in the form?

MR MBOKANE: A person who was assisting me had the necessary information. I was telling him as he was filling in. I guess he chose to fill in the information as he did.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you look what he had filled in before you signed the form or didn't you understand it?

MR MBOKANE: I did not understand this.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: This person who completed this form for you, do you know his standard of education?

MR MBOKANE: I know him to be still studying in prison.

ADV SANDI: What is he studying, if that is in any way relevant?

MR MBOKANE: I know that he is just completing his studies.

ADV SANDI: I take it that you would not perhaps be able to say what his level of proficiency is in the English language would you?

MR MBOKANE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: What is correct.

MR MBOKANE: I'm not in the position to say how proficient he is in English.

ADV SANDI: I see that in your statement you mention that your brother was killed, when was this?

MR MBOKANE: This happened in 1985.

ADV SANDI: And when did you become a supporter of the ANC?

MR MBOKANE: In 1986.

ADV SANDI: Would the fact that your brother was killed by members of the IFP, would that have anything to do with your joining the ANC and become its supporter in 1986, a year later?

MR MBOKANE: No, I was already determined to join the ANC and I did this voluntarily, out of my volition.

ADV SANDI: Why do you mention this incident concerning your brother in your application?

MR MBOKANE: It is because I want to come up with a complete picture so that people should understand what experiences I went through, myself and my family.

ADV SANDI: You have said in your evidence you received information that members of the Black Cats were receiving training at the Giwi Breyten, at the compound you were talking about. How long did your investigation of that take, how long did it take to investigate that?

MR MBOKANE: My investigation lasted for three days.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Mbokane.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

AMNESTY HEARING

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Patel?

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr Mkhwanazi.

Before calling him to the stand, we wish to make an application in terms of Section 33(1)(b), namely that his evidence be heard in camera. The reason for making the application is as follows: Mr Chairman, you and your learned Committee Members are aware of the hostilities that are existing between the various parties that are present. It has been reported to me through the applicants that I represent, that they've received death threats more particularly aimed at the four people who formed the Special Committee.

The three applicants, save Mr Mkhwanazi, are resident in Ermelo and are well-known to everybody, hence a similar application will not be brought in respect of them. Mr Mkhwanazi however to a large extent and because of the manner in which he conducted himself in the Ermelo area is unknown to a lot of people, in fact his role in what took place is to a large extent unknown. Given the threats that have been made he fears for his life and safety.

My submission is that that particular fear is well-founded given the circumstances that are prevailing at this point in time. My submission is that in view of the threats and the belief that he entertains that his life is in danger, that his request that his evidence be held in camera be entertained.

My submission would be to exclude the media and members of the public, but given the antagonism that exists which we don't want to fuel and to avoid any unnecessary prejudice, we would only ask for the exclusion of those two categories. In other words we would say that the victims or their next-of-kin can be present. So all we are asking for at the end of the day is two categories to be, or rather all categories to be excluded save for victims and/or their next-of-kin. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] co-applicants?

MR PATEL: We don't have a problem with the co-applicants either.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] views?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, I've got no particular view in this regard. My clients won't be prejudiced by such an order.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect Chairperson, I think there has to be more concrete testimony before you for such an application. The whole amnesty hearing is there to show the people that people are prepared to testify and to tell what they did and also to tell the community how they feel about their deeds.

I think the community here in Ermelo has great interest here, not only the victims. It would seem when one listens to Mr Gushu's testimony and the cross-examination by Mr Hattingh, it would seem that the whole community actually suffered because of what happened here. I act on behalf of Mr Msibi who has an interest in this testimony and I feel that there ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt, the application was directed at other people in that category.

MS VAN DER WALT: I realise that and I think that what you have said this morning and when you addressed the community this would cause more problems if the community is excluded. They have so much interest that it is evident that there, so many people are present here every day and to exclude them under these circumstances I feel the goal of the Act will not be reached.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about the threats or the alleged threats?

MS VAN DER WALT: If it is so and the victims are here then it won't make much difference, with respect. I have nothing further.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson, it is for the applicant to verify this, and my colleague has to have made this application behind closed doors but it is now known what the circumstances are. The facts are already on document, testimonies are already before you, it is already known what he is going to testify about. With respect Chairperson, as my colleague indicated it has to be done in such a manner that the applicants, their families and other involved parties have to be aware of it. What protection is there for him now? It is known that he is going to testify, he is an applicant, he is not a witness and under these circumstances of the promotion of reconciliation it has to be in an open hearing, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Does this touch the people who you represent?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as such but there is testimony that Mkhwanazi already sent Gushu to Piet Retief. I don't know what else he is going to say. This does not appear in his application, it's not very complete and in that sense it could have effect.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you think that it won't touch on it? Do you say that the probability exists?

MR PRINSLOO: At this stage I don't know what he is going to.

CHAIRPERSON: But of the documents we have here, is there not a probability, there is no probability that your client would be affected by this.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the testimony of Gush Honourable Chairperson, he said that he was sent there by Mkhwanazi who was the one who gave the instructions, as I remember the testimony and that is the person who is going to testify now.

In his application form itself, that is Mkhwanazi, it does not appear in the documentation there and that is why I say it depends on what Mkhwanazi says himself if he is going to stick by Gushu's evidence. That is my only interest Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Prinsloo, I have to take a decision here on the probabilities.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot look at what might happen and what might not happen but I take your point.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, in my reading of Section 33, the victims are in any event entitled to remain, they cannot be excluded.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't think it touches your, the concession has been made in respect of your clients.

MR HATTINGH: All I'm saying is they are in any event entitled to be here.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR HATTINGH: Secondly, to exclude other or the members of the public, the people who are not victims, that sense, once again I have received a little scribbled note from my "clients", in which they say they would prefer that the public be present.

Now for what it is worth, I think it is important to still bear in mind to what extent excluding a part of the public is going, what the result will have on the perceptions of the public as to how open this hearing is. How is this community going to benefit from excluding certain parts of community in hearing what this person has got to say.

This witness has - there are full indications that this witness will provide extensive background as to reasons and instructions for the killing of various of my clients. My position would be, although we've heard that there were threats made to the life of this witness, no mention has been made of the names of the people who made those threats. We don't know whether they form part of my client base.

CHAIRPERSON: What about putting the applicant or the witness into comfortable position, because he perceives these events and it creates a bit of an emotional charge in him which effects his ability to testify properly, what about that?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, do you mean by that that he cannot be seen by the public or ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. Look, let's assume we accept that horse is bolted and he doesn't, in his own mind he is being threatened and he sees testifying behind closed doors as a means to protect himself when it in fact need not be the case but it puts him at ease in order to testify, what about that?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I don't really think I'm in a position to really respond to that because whether putting someone at ease, whether that is a requirement or not, I think it's more important to find out whether there is a real likelihood that harm may ensue as stated in the Act, to any person as a result of the proceedings being in an open hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's put it under Sub-Section (i) or small (1): To put him at ease to give his evidence as best he can, would surely be in the interest of Justice?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, my opposing representation ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to know what your attitude was to this.

MR HATTINGH: My opposing application would merely be based on the fact that it may leave the community with the sense that they were excluded and once again we are not making progress with reconciliation. That is all I think I can really ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That's the difference between representatives and presiding officers. I have to take both sides into consideration.

MR HATTINGH: I could not really take it any further, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, I would leave it in the hands of the Committee but Sir, I just want to note that the IFP and the ANC have been notified by the Committee in terms of Section 19 Sub-Section (iv) as interested parties. They have been notified of their right to attend the hearing. I have not received their attitude to that in this application but I would ask the Committee to also perhaps take into account their interest.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, have you got any particular attitude?

MR BLACK: No, I have got no views on this matter, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, as it were, the horse is bolted isn't it?

MR PATEL: With respect Mr Chairman, my submission would be that it hasn't, the man hasn't testified yet, a lot of people in the public don't know who he is yet.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, but once the victims hear what he says are you seeking that I swear them to secrecy? Surely it will be an exercise in futility.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm raising the issue because it is a consideration.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. The idea behind leaving the victims where they are to listen to the application, I think I made quite clear. One must also bear in mind that the threats have come about during the course of the application an not before, hence there was nothing we could do save to bring it at the time when he is about to give evidence. I think to a large extent, if for example the media is excluded, his face won't be plastered all over TV, less people will know about him. He doesn't reside in this area and at the end of the application hopefully he will go back to where he comes from and will no longer be scrutinised by members of this particular community where he could possibly be targeted as a hit. May I just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PATEL: As I understand it, the threat does come from members of this community.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PATEL: Well maybe I should then limit the application to just exclude then the media, particularly the TV because in essence he is very uncomfortable with that particular aspect. There was some mention made by my colleagues in objecting to the application with regard to more concrete evidence being led on these threats you know and I would expect that they would accept my word for it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] the revised application serious consideration.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. I think at the end of the day what it boils down to is a weighing up of rights and interests. There can be no right or interest greater than preservation of life and safety, in my submission.

The Act doesn't talk as Mr Hattingh says, of a real likelihood but merely of a likelihood that harm may ensue. The Act doesn't say that it must be a witness as suggested by Mr Prinsloo, it relates to any person in ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PATEL: Yes, but in effect he is an applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to make a ruling because I don't need to I don't think. As perhaps a forerunner to what I hope is going to occur in this area, I've negotiated with the media and they have undertaken to be very sensitive. They have heard what you've got to say and to be extremely sensitive in what they publicise. I'm happy that they would have complete regard for the sensitivities at hand.

MR PATEL: I appreciate that Mr Chairman. I beg leave to call the next applicant, Mr J A Mkhwanazi.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi, which language would you prefer to use?

MR MKHWANAZI: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.

J A MKHWANAZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi before we proceed, your advocate has made an application to me regarding your fears. I have not made a ruling on the issue because I have negotiated with the media and they had undertaken to be extremely sensitive towards the issues which your advocate has fully explained to us. I just thought that I would tell you what the position is so that you will have peace of mind when you testify.

Proceed Mr Patel.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. May I just mention by way of introduction that there were a whole lot of supplementary statements made in respect of all the applicants that I represent. None of these statements had been signed and due to what happened last week with regard to the unsigning or the non-signing of statements, I took it upon myself with the commission of all my learned colleagues that the statements could be signed and they have now been signed. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you see to it that the signed documents are at the appropriate stages in the hands of Mr Mapoma?

EXAMINATION BY MR PATEL: Yes, I will do so.

Mr Mkhwanazi, you were not born in Ermelo, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Correct.

MR PATEL: When was it that you came to reside in Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was in the early '90's.

MR PATEL: And at that time, what was your occupation?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was a commander of the Umkhonto wesizwe.

MR PATEL: Now you have heard the evidence of Mr John Mndebele, do you confirm the background statement which I read to him and he confirmed insofar as it relates to you?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR PATEL: In your statement or rather in the schedule which details the offences for which amnesty is claimed, which appears on page 20 of Volume 1, if you turn to page 20 of those documents in front of you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, if I may just point out, there is precedent much publicised about Item 6 on the schedule. We I think are only able to grant amnesty in specifics and if the specific issues relating to robberies and setting defence units etc., amnesty would only pertain to those issues that are being discussed here.

We are not, I don't think able unless you are going to persuade us by way of argument, in which case we would have to look at the matter afresh, we are not able to give general amnesty for undetailed crimes. I just thought I'd mention it.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

You will see on page 21 your name appears - if I may just approach - if you turn to the next page you will see your name appears on the next page at Point 4 and you claim amnesty firstly for the same offences that Mr Mndebele claims amnesty for, do you confirm that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR PATEL: In addition you claim amnesty for illegal possession of an AK47 and Makaroff pistol and ammunition, do you confirm that?

MR MKHWANAZI: That's correct.

MR PATEL: If we can just go to page 20 and look at the offences for which Mr Mndebele and yourself claim amnesty for. This is firstly for the murder of Jwi Zwane, do you confirm that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

MR PATEL: You also claim amnesty for the attempted murder of Happy Mhlongo, Sibusiso Tito Nkosi and Eric Nkosi?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What bout ...[inaudible]

MR PATEL: I'm still at Point 2, Mr Chairman.

MR PATEL: I don't follow ...[inaudible]

MR PATEL: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: ....[inaudible]

MR PATEL: Yes. If Mr Chairman has regard to page 20, then I have just finished paragraph 2.2 with the applicant. As it pleases you.

The third incident that amnesty is claimed for is the murder of Chris Ngwenya, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

MR PATEL: And you also claim amnesty for the murder Lindiwe Nkosi?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

MR PATEL: You also claim amnesty for the attempted murder of Thembisile Nkambule?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

MR PATEL: Finally, you claim amnesty for general instructions that you issued to set up self-defence units and who were to illegally arm themselves and to protect themselves and the community from unlawful attacks and at all costs to achieve a stability in the area, do you confirm that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry Mr Patel, what offence is constituted in terms of Point 6:

In terms of what offence is this?

MR PATEL: The offence would flow from what the self-defence units did. He as a commander set up or instructed them to set up self-defence units for a certain purpose. If what the self-defence units then did was illegal, and we've heard evidence of what self-defence units did insofar as they did commit these crimes as part of a self-defence unit which this applicant was one of the founders of, in that respect he claims amnesty.

ADV SANDI: Is that not what Point 1 to 5 pertains to?

MR PATEL: Points 1 to 5 are specific incidents. As the Committee has already heard evidence, there were other incidents apart from what is covered in Points 1 to 5. As it pleases you.

The offences that we've just outlined and for which you claim amnesty, in a nutshell could you explain to the Committee what your motivation was for perpetrating the offences?

MR MKHWANAZI: There was war at Ermelo, people were fighting.

MR PATEL: And what purpose was the - let's take it this way, you gave express instructions to assassinate two people, am I correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR PATEL: And who were these two people?

MR MKHWANAZI: It Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya.

MR PATEL: In addition you gave general instructions, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR PATEL: To whom were these instructions given?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was directed to Mzwandile Gushu.

MR PATEL: Insofar as the assassination of Chris Ngwenya is concerned, who did you give the instructions to?

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave it Mzwandile Gushu and Paulus Nkonyane.

MR PATEL: Insofar as the assassination of Jwi Zwane is concerned, who did you give the express instruction to?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was Mzwandile Gushu.

MR PATEL: According to you Mr Mkhwanazi, the two people namely Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane, who were they? Were they members of any political party?

MR MKHWANAZI: They were Black Cat members who were responsible for the violence here in Ermelo.

MR PATEL: As a commander of the ANC, how did you view people and leaders of the IFP?

MR MKHWANAZI: The leaders of IFP who were involved in violence were the enemies of ANC.

MR PATEL: In the issuing out of your instructions to Gushu, in what capacity were you acting?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was a member of the Special Committee ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: Can the applicant please repeat the answer?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was giving him instructions as he was a commander of the MK, uMkhonto weSizwe.

MR PATEL: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mkhwanazi, the question your legal representative put to you a few moments ago was: To what political party did Ngwenya and Zwane belong and your answer was that Ngwenya and Zwane were Black Cat members and I don't see the connection. What connection did you see between the Black Cat members and a political party, or did you regard the Black Cats group as a political party? It's not clear from your evidence.

MR MKHWANAZI: They were Black Cat members and they were also IFP members.

MR PATEL: I thank you Madam.

The last question I asked you Mr Mkhwanazi is, in issuing out your instructions to Mr Gushu, what capacity were you acting in?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was the commander of uMkhonto weSizwe.

MR PATEL: Did you specifically get instructions from anybody else in the ANC command?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was accountable to the Chief of Staff of the uMkhonto weSizwe, that was Chris Hani.

MR PATEL: The acts for which you claim amnesty for, were you paid any salary or any other kind of remuneration for your services?

MR MKHWANAZI: No.

MR PATEL: Now just to cover some specific events, insofar as Mr Gushu was concerned, did you check out his credentials when you first met? In other words did you check out whether he was a member of the ANC, whether he was a cadre etc?

MR MKHWANAZI: I tried to check those. Mzwandile Gushu was brought to me by JJ Mabena and I asked JJ to confirm Mzwandile with the structure where he was actually coming from, where Mzwandile Gushu was coming from. And the way - when I was training him, I realised that he was not, he was experienced in using the firearm, he was ready. So it was just a refresher course.

MR PATEL: Where exactly did you train him?

MR MKHWANAZI: The refresher course, where did that take place?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was in Nelspruit.

MR PATEL: Do I understand from your answer that you did check out his military expertise?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was satisfied the way he was responding to the training and the idea that he had concerning the firearms. That indicated to me that he was trained before and therefore he had to take a refresher course.

MR PATEL: Were you satisfied that if you gave him instructions he would act responsibly?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I was satisfied because I spent two weeks with him and the discipline that he showed, and even if we were discussing the political situation you could see that he was matured and he clearly understood the situation.

MR PATEL: In issuing out the various instructions that you did give to him, did you expect him to work on his own?

MR MKHWANAZI: I didn't think that way. I told him that it was necessary for him to establish the SDU's whom he would be a commander of and issue instructions because he wouldn't be able to do all the work alone, meaning to normalise the situation, so he needed some assistance.

MR PATEL: Insofar as training is concerned, apart from training or the refresher course that you went through with Mr Gushu, did you train any other people in the use of military weapons, in the use of weapons?

MR MKHWANAZI: Do you mean here inside the country or across the borders?

MR PATEL: No, just inside the country, in the Ermelo, Piet Retief and Secunda areas.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I also trained Pistol Nkonyane(?).

MR PATEL: Anybody else?

MR MKHWANAZI: So far those are the only people that I can remember.

MR PATEL: Now we've heard Mr Gushu give evidence about the envisaged attack on the Mandela Squatter Camp, can you tell the Committee what your role was if any, in that regard?

MR MKHWANAZI: I didn't play a role except when Mzwandile came to me and he reported that there was a possibility that the Mandela Squatter Camp would be attacked.

He told me about the action that they had taken. I approved that if they've the necessary action to prevent the Mandela Squatter Camp from being attacked, it was a good decision.

MR PATEL: The AK47 and Makaroff pistol that you claim amnesty for or being in possession of, where did you obtain this?

MR MKHWANAZI: I got it from Delby in Germiston. When I came into the country I was given an instruction that in Germiston I was going to get the DLB and I was going to get a Makaroff and an AK47.

MR PATEL: Will you just for the purposes of everybody, just tell us what a DLB is?

MR MKHWANAZI: It is a dead letterbox where you hide something, weapons or messages, anything that you will be able to keep there so that somebody else will get it there, we call that a DLB.

MR PATEL: Did you report - did you approve the assassination of Mr Advice Gwala?

MR MKHWANAZI: After Advice Gwala's death, Mzwandile came to me and he reported the matter, he said to me he shot Advice Gwala. He gave me the reasons why Advice Gwala was shot.

After getting those reasons I approved and JJ Mabena came before to me and he also complained about Advice Gwala and he gave some information concerning Mr Gwala's involvement. That is how I approved the killing.

MR PATEL: If I understand your evidence correctly then you never gave the instruction but you approved after the deed, would that be correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, the only instruction that I gave to Mzwandile was that he has got to stabilise the situation in Secunda. There was no specific instruction that was given to him to go and kill Advice Gwala but that was part of the instructions to actually stabilise the situation prevailing at the time.

MR PATEL: I'm sorry to jump around like this but the AK47 and Makaroff pistol, for what reason did you get it, for what purpose?

MR MKHWANAZI: There was a war situation at Ermelo and the community of Ermelo was unarmed and there was no defence. We took the arms because we wanted to protect the community of Ermelo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes. On the self-defence units, did you actively participate in their role or what exactly was the role that you played, with regard to the self-defence units?

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave Mzwandile the instruction to establish the self-defence units. I didn't want to take part because of security reasons. I was preventing a situation whereby I would be arrested and that would have led to other people being arrested, that is why I left all the responsibility to Mzwandile, strictly for security reasons.

MR PATEL: Mr Mkhwanazi, have you been convicted for any of the offences for which you claim amnesty?

MR MKHWANAZI: No.

MR PATEL: Now if you'll just turn, in the bundle before you if you will turn to pages 75 to 78, that is a supplementary statement made by yourself. Have you read this statement?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did, with my legal

representative.

MR PATEL: Do you confirm that the signature which now appears on page 78 is your signature?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR PATEL: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of the statement?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR PATEL: I have not further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Yes, I have a few. I just want to clarify some issues.

Mr Mkhwanazi, if you page to page 13 of Volume 1, Mr Mndebele testified as to the historical background and he said, although it doesn't necessarily have to be the exact words but he more or less summed up, and he said the general instruction which was given to Gushu appears more or less as stated in paragraph 16.1 and 16.2, namely that he was to recruit the assistance from SDU's in the local community and 16.2 says he was to obtain arms and ammunition and to finance these operations from whatever sources possible, including armed robbery. Is that the gist of the general instruction which you gave to Mr Gushu?

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave him the instruction that he must establish the SDU's and arm them. I left it in his hands as to how to arm those self-defence units as a soldier, but at the end of the day the self-defence units were expected to be armed.

MR BLACK: Now Mr Mkhwanazi, you say that you did train Mr Gushu, gave him a refresher course in military training at Nelspruit. After that course were you satisfied that he was a disciplined soldier and that he would carry out the mandate which you gave him?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I was satisfied.

MR BLACK: You've heard the evidence of Mr Gushu, are you satisfied that those, that he did in fact carry out the mandate and that the events in respect of which he seeks amnesty fell within that mandate which you gave him?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: If at any stage either Mr Gushu or any one of the members of the SDU's which he established went outside that mandate which you had conveyed to him as a consequence of the decision made the committee, if they had gone outside that mandate would they have in fact been called in and disciplined?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that was possible. Although I was actually dealing with Mzwandile directly, if the members of his self-defence unit did something wrong I was able to call a person who was responsible for those SDU's to account for that. It would be very difficult because I didn't know the self-defence unit members personally.

MR BLACK: You've heard the evidence - one of the incidents for which you are applying for amnesty is as I gather, is that the, you are also asking for any amnesty in respect of any actions which may have been done by members of a self-defence unit set up by Mr Gushu as a consequence of your instructions to establish such self-defence units?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct because I was the one who instructed Mzwandile to establish the self-defence units.

MR BLACK: So I gather that you're accepting the responsibility for the actions of Mr Gushu and the consequences of the establishment of SDU's provided that any actions committed by the SDU's fell within the mandate, you're accepting the overall responsibility?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: Now there's just one specific issue, I don't know if you have any personal knowledge of it, Mr Khaba testified that he was a member of an SDU established by Mr Gushu and he says that as a member of the SDU he killed Mr Obed Nhlabathi in hospital, are you aware of that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Bongani was not directly involved with me. I didn't even know that he was a member of the SDU. I can't comment on that basis.

MR BLACK: Now were there any actions committed by Mr Gushu or by any members of the SDU's which he established which fell outside the mandate which you'd given to Mr Gushu and that you found necessary to call in Mr Gushu and reprimand him about it or discipline him?

MR MKHWANAZI: Not as far as I know.

MR BLACK: And the are which Mr Gushu, Mzwandile was given authority to try and stabilise and normalise, was that the Piet Retief, Secunda, Ermelo and Du Wawel, Duval area? Dawel area, sorry.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: And when you meant: "stabilise a situation", did that include that he was authorised to kill any instigators of the violence or any enemies in those areas?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR BLACK: Thank you, I have no further questions.

MR HATTINGH: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Sir.

Sir, you were trained by MK and you said that you returned to the country, that is now the Republic of South Africa, when did you return?

MR MKHWANAZI: ...[no English translation]

MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you go to then?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was trained in Angola.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but when you came into the country, where did you go then?

MR MKHWANAZI: I left the country in 1985, I trained in Angola, Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. I came back in 1989.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you returned from your training, where did you go to then in South Africa?

MR MKHWANAZI: My contact was in Piet Retief so I went to Motsamai ...[indistinct] in Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then remain there or did you go to Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: I stayed for quite a while, I think it was about six months although I'm not positive as to the length of time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then go to Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then receive any instructions of the ANC when you came into the country to come and do something here?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I arrived here the structures of the ANC were outside the country. I came already having instructions to form some structures of the MK that were going to exist within the country. So I got the instruction, when I arrived in the country I already had instructions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who gave you these instructions?

MR MKHWANAZI: I had already pointed out that I was directly linked with the then Chief of Staff, Chris Hani.

MS VAN DER WALT: So he gave you the instruction to come and train people here?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What other instructions did you receive from him?

MR MKHWANAZI: That I should act, or I should use my own discretion in order to try and curb the violence because during the time he was still in Zambia, so he was not within the country. He gave me quite wide powers to actually act as I deemed fit.

MS VAN DER WALT: So he did not give you instructions to establish self-defence units?

MR MKHWANAZI: If you do follow the news bulletins you would appreciate the fact that there was sporadic outbreaks of violence in a lot of townships and the ANC issued a statement that people should take in their your hands or their own initiative in order to try and protect themselves, so in a lot of townships self-defence units were established.

MS VAN DER WALT: All that I asked Sir, was that Chris Hani did not give you the instruction to establish self-defence units.

MR MKHWANAZI: He did give me the powers to do anything necessary in order to defend the members of the community because he was based in Zambia and I was the one who was witnessing what was going on within the country, and that is why I established self-defence units.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find it necessary to do so, in your opinion?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is so.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did Chris Hani return to the Republic of South Africa?

MR MKHWANAZI: I'm not sure because I was operating underground at that time.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, Sir, your evidence is that you reported back to Chris Hani with regards to what happened to the self-defence units.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he when you reported back?

MR MKHWANAZI: I only reported back to him once when we were in Transkei, Umtata.

MS VAN DER WALT: So the impression that you tried to create before this Committee that you reported back to him is actually wrong, you only went back to him once?

ADV POTGIETER: Objection Mr Chairman, this witness has never sought to create that impression.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that Miss van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: If you look at the evidence, he said that he had to report back to Chris Hani. I mean to go to him once over a period of three years, according to his testimony, where violence was in the country and according to Mr Mndebele's testimony, if I got the wrong impression, my impression was that he was responsible for what was going on in the self-defence units and had to report back.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot remember the specific words that were used. Report back and accountability is two different words but you will have to help me remember. I cannot remember what words were used.

MS VAN DER WALT: The Afrikaans was translated to: "to account".

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Bosman tells me that the translation that she received was that he was accountable to Chris Hani.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will leave it there and I will continue with the next point.

Sir, you say that you went to Chris Hani, where exactly when you reported back to him?

MR MKHWANAZI: I had already said the then Transkei in Umtata.

MS VAN DER WALT: When was that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think it was during 1991 or early 1992, I don't remember very well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then at that stage already establish the SDU's?

MR MKHWANAZI: Gushu was responsible for the establishment of the SDU's.

MS VAN DER WALT: You already gave the instructions that he must establish the SDU's?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this instruction or this broader instruction from Chris Hani you received before you came into the country?

MR MKHWANAZI: Which one exactly are you referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you received an instruction to rectify the situation in the country where there is violence and you received this from Chris Hani.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, when I was moving from Zambia.

MS VAN DER WALT: This was now in 1989?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were there problems in Ermelo at that stage?

MR MKHWANAZI: I'm not aware as to whether there was but when I arrived I experienced some problems or I realised that there were some problems.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this now in Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I said when I arrived there was already fighting or violence.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this violence to which Chris Hani referred to, was this the violence that you experienced in Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: Chris Hani did not refer specifically to the violence in Ermelo but he issued an instruction with regard to Soweto as well as any other area that was experiencing violence problems. When I arrived in Ermelo I realised that the very same situation existed even in Ermelo. He did not specify any particular geographic area.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you went to go and see him in the Transkei, who was with you?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was all by myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you only went to him once, you were alone, did you then discuss the SDU's with him?

MR MKHWANAZI: We spoke about the situation of violence in Secunda, Ermelo as well as Piet Retief. I also gave him a broader picture of the attempts in order to bring the situation under control. I also pointed out to him that I had instructed a certain person to form self-defence units within the townships that I've already counted or mentioned.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Chris Hani then give you further instructions regarding what these SDU's must do?

MR MKHWANAZI: He was happy with the way I was able to control and get hold of the situation. He said to me I should keep it up, he was quite happy.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see Sir, I ask these questions of you because Mr Mndebele testified here and he was also called out of order especially to provide the Committee the opportunity, to give them the background history of the situation in Ermelo, do you remember that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Mndebele testified that the organisation, the Anti-Crime Committee was only established in 1989 and it was initially a good committee who tried prevent crime here in Ermelo, do you remember that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: So at that stage the establishment of that Committee was directed to prevent ordinary crime, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: I will not be able to answer that because I had not yet arrived in Ermelo. Mndebele would be in a better position to answer that question.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, but then shortly after that you came to Ermelo, that is a few months later.

MR MKHWANAZI: Although I'm not able to tell you how many months thereafter that I did come back to Ermelo.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you lived in Piet Retief, was it peaceful?

MR MKHWANAZI: There were attacks on members of the Mass Democratic Movement.

MS VAN DER WALT: Are you finished? I do not know if I heard everything that was translated.

MR MKHWANAZI: I said there was no peace, the situation was not normal. There would be sporadic attacks on members of the Mass Democratic Movement, the Mass Democratic Front.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was there any action of the Black Cats during '89 to '91 or any violence in Piet Retief? Mr Msibi will testify with regards to that.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he will give that kind of evidence because he wants to benefit from it but in reality, when I came to Ermelo there was already violence between the Black Cats as well as the members of the community and the strategy that they used was to spread around all the townships in Ermelo, to such an extent that the Black Cats were able to help structures of the IFP so as to prevent members of the ANC from making the area a stronghold of the ANC.

MS VAN DER WALT: We are busy with the fact when you stayed in Piet Retief.

MR MKHWANAZI: The question is not completed, I didn't hear it.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you repeat the question?

MS VAN DER WALT: When you stayed in Piet Retief, before you came to Ermelo, I put it to you that from '89 to '91 there was no violence in Piet Retief.

MR MKHWANAZI: You were staying in the urban areas so I don't know where you get that information from because you were not directly affected by the violence in the location or the residential areas. You were not directly affected. I don't even think you noticed that there was violence in those areas because you were not staying there and it didn't affect you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi, all the advocate is putting to you is what her instructions are, she is not saying that she had personal knowledge of it, do you understand?

MR MKHWANAZI: I understand.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, when there was violence to such an extent as you just described it, what did you do in Piet Retief to try and curb the violence?

MR PATEL: I must object to that question Mr Chairman. This questions, I'm not sure what the answer is to it but it exposes Mr Mkhwanazi to other offences to which he hasn't claimed amnesty. You will recall that his testimony relates to what he did in Ermelo and not in the Piet Retief area. The whole general trend of the questions are in my submission irrelevant but I haven't objected for various reasons but on this particular point I think I must stress that it's not a permissable question.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to change the question?

MS VAN DER WALT: I will change it but would just like to point out to his representative that he brought an open application regarding to what any of the SDU's did and then he cannot incriminate himself in crimes which he did not make known now.

MR PATEL: If I may just respond. The SDU's are the SDU's for which, he formulated in the Ermelo area. He can't take responsibility for SDU's who performed actions in Cape Town and Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that but isn't that question surrounding the Ermelo area? As I understand the question: What did he do in Ermelo to curb the violence? Is that not so Miss van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I would also like to point out that when Mr Black asked him if he acted as commander in order to curb the violence, he specifically asked him: Ermelo, Dawel and Piet Retief and he confirmed that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, isn't that question a relevant question?

MR PATEL: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the question relevant?

MR PATEL: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking you what your views are.

MR PATEL: I cannot hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the questions not relevant?

MR PATEL: The question as I understood it initially was as follows: "There was violence in the Piet Retief area, my instructions are that there was no violence, you say that you were there in Piet Retief for a short time in '89 and sometime in 1990 you came to Ermelo. For the period 1989 to 1991, my client Mr Msibi will testify that there was no violence". On the basis of that the question is: "If you say there was violence, what did you do insofar as it related to that particular situation"?

The witness has testified that when he came to Ermelo this is what he did insofar as it's related to Ermelo.

Insofar as any acts before that he hasn't claimed amnesty, whether it be with regard to specific instructions, whether it be with regard to general instructions but before getting to Ermelo he has not claimed amnesty for anything that he has done and therefore this sort of questioning opens him up to offences for which he hasn't claimed amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: You described what you did in order to clamp down on the violence, the crime. When you got to these areas under your jurisdiction as it were, did you do anything else besides what you described, relating to the issues for which you apply for amnesty?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I arrived in Ermelo I consulted with Mndebele, I also encouraged him to speak or negotiate with members of the IFP in order to sort the problem out but his attempts were always thwarted, especially when he gave me the report back. He told me that the Black Cats members told him that they were controlled at Ulundi and they did not want to negotiate with anyone else and therefore he was not in a position to them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, if I could take you back to your own testimony and that is why I asked this question, what you did at Piet Retief. Before you came back into this country you received instructions from Chris Hani,

according to your testimony, that you had to do something about the violence, you had to recruit some people here, is that correct or do you want to change it?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is true.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you come and according to you there were problems at Piet Retief, is that right?

MR MKHWANAZI: I did point out that when I arrived in Piet Retief there were some attacks on the MDM structures.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do with the instruction that you received from Chris Hani, to do something about the violence in Piet Retief?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, my original objection to this question still stands.

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of the problems in Piet Retief, did you do anything other than what you described to us, in an attempt to quell the violence and crime?

MR MKHWANAZI: I didn't stay long in Piet Retief, I moved to Ermelo, so there isn't much that I did in the Piet Retief area in order to try and stop the violence.

CHAIRPERSON: That may be so. Did you do anything else other than what you've told us you did? Yes or no?

MR MKHWANAZI: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I arrived in the country my obligation was to set up structures that were going to be able to operate underground. I did not stay long in Piet Retief, so I was not able to do anything. It was only when I was settled and established in Ermelo that I was able to set up these structures. Had I stayed longer in Piet Retief, I would have been able to set up these structures or do something.

MS VAN DER WALT: If your testimony is correct, why did Mr Mndebele not speak the truth in terms of the instruction from Chris Hani because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that question please.

MS VAN DER WALT: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS VAN DER WALT: If this applicant's testimony is true then I want to know from him why would Mr Mndebele tell untruths here. I would like to the testimony to him later.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not a question for Mr Mndebele to answer?

MS VAN DER WALT: One of the two's application ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: This witness gives a version, he says it's the truth. Can it be expected that he should explain someone else's version?

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would just like to put to him what Mr Mndebele says.

Mr Mndebele says that in July 1990, yourself with him and a Mr Zwane went to Chris Hani where you met with him and you discussed problems in Ermelo, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this?

MS VAN DER WALT: This in July 1990, testimony was not given as to where it was.

MR PATEL: With respect Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mndebele was that it took place in Johannesburg at Shell House.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, I did not note that.

That was in Johannesburg in 1990 and today you say that in 1991 you went and saw Chris Hani in Transkei and that was the only time that you negotiated with him since you entered the country in 1989.

MR MKHWANAZI: I don't remember Mndebele saying that he was with me and I don't remember being with Mndebele either. With regard to the Transkei matter, that is the truth and that is the only time that I was able to meet with him because we were operating underground and we were not able to see each other frequently.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that may be so but if Mr Mndebele had said you were party to consulting with Mr Chris Hani, what would you say?

MR MKHWANAZI: I don't remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to refer you to Volume 1, page 10, paragraph 8. Could you page to page 10?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mndebele's evidence? But he says he cannot remember. I don't think there is a dispute that such evidence was given.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you work underground when you were here in Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: Could you please repeat your question?

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you have to work underground when you were in Ermelo?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was going to be arrested.

MS VAN DER WALT: But Sir, the ANC in February 1990 was unbanned.

CHAIRPERSON: He never said why he thought he was going to be arrested.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Honourable Committee why you thought that you were going to be arrested?

MR MKHWANAZI: It's because I had not yet got amnesty to enter the country or indemnity.

MS VAN DER WALT: Until when did you work underground?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think it was early 1993 or late 1992 that I applied for amnesty, so I was able then to continue then to continue with whatever I was doing.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to take you to the instruction that you gave to Mr Gushu, can you repeat it? What was your precise instruction to him?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, there were a few instructions obviously given between this witness and Mr Gushu, perhaps my learned friend can just direct him as to which instruction she's talking about.

MS VAN DER WALT: All the instructions that you gave to Mr Gushu.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt, maybe it is going to help if you ask him chronologically: "At a certain stage what is the instruction that you gave"?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is my problem Mr Chairperson. The applicant, and it is apparent of these applicants, I would like to know if this was the ANC's policy. According to me they gave such vague instructions which included deeds that I would not want to mention here because I want him to tell me what the instruction was but I will try to be more specific.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he testify that there were several instances where he received several instructions?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is not how I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: You have testified that you gave Mr Gushu at least one instruction, do you recall that?

MR MKHWANAZI: It's for him to kill Jwi.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get that.

MR MKHWANAZI: For him to kill Jwi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. At that time, can you explain to us what the exact instruction was?

MR MKHWANAZI: I laid the background with regard to the situation in Ermelo and that the person behind the violence was Jwi and he therefore had to remove him so that we could see as to whether this violence would be quelled thereafter or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all you told him to do?

MR MKHWANAZI: I instructed with regard to Chris Ngwenya and the general instruction to stabilise the situation in the neighbouring townships.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you give him a discretion how to do that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Could you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: In telling him that or giving him an order that he should do, or that he should quell the violence and whatever else in the area, did your order take the form of giving him a general discretion as to use his own initiative in order to do that or did you give him specific instructions?

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave him an instruction to take the initiative. He should weight the situation first and act in accordance with whatever situation prevailed at the time and do whatever he thought was fit.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say you gave him this instruction and you gave him an instruction to kill Zwane and you gave him an instruction to kill Ngwenya, was that all the same time or was it on different occasions?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was at different times.

CHAIRPERSON: Now which one was first?

MR MKHWANAZI: I don't remember quite well as to which instruction I gave first, but after I had trained him in Nelspruit I told him that he should stabilise the situation because he was going back to Secunda and I was coming to Ermelo, so I told him that he should try to stabilise the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you accept, chronologically I think we've established that Mr Zwane died first.

MR MKHWANAZI: I think I will accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: So the order to kill Ngwenya must have come after that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think the Jwi Zwane matter came first and then the Ngwenya matter came thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: This other general instruction to use his discretion in his attempt to quell the situation, was that the third occasion or did you tell him that on one of those occasions where you gave him an order to kill a person?

MR MKHWANAZI: Could you repeat the question please?

CHAIRPERSON: You know that general instruction you gave him about the situation in the area, when did you give him that instruction?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is when we parted in Nelspruit.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the time when you gave him the order to kill Zwane?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, the Zwane matter was discussed here in Ermelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Before or after you gave him the general instruction to get the matter under control?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think it was after. I started with the general instruction and I came to the Jwi Zwane matter.

CHAIRPERSON: And then to the Ngwenya matter.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, if I remember quite well I think the Ngwenya matter came thereafter but I am not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt, I hope that helps.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just clarify one thing please.

Mr Mkhwanazi, what did you include under the area, which places did you include under the area when you gave this general instruction?

MR MKHWANAZI: Mbalentle, Secunda, Ermelo as well as Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: What about Dawel?

MR MKHWANAZI: Dawel as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your instruction to Mr Gushu in terms of the self-defence units?

MR MKHWANAZI: I had already said that I had told him to form SDU's because he was not going to be able to quell the violence single-handedly. As to how he formed them was really up to him.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your instruction to him with regard to Piet Retief?

MR MKHWANAZI: With what exactly in Piet Retief?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] tell him he must go to Piet Retief?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I issued the general instruction I counted or mentioned all the townships where there was violence as well as all the townships where the Black Cats were reigning, were conducting a reign of terror.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that include Piet Retief?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: How do you know that the Black Cats operated in Piet Retief?

CHAIRPERSON: He did not say so, he said his instruction was that Gushu had to cover the places where problems were and where the Black Cats operated.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your instruction with regard to Piet Retief, because you have now said that you named all the places? What did he have to do in Piet Retief?

MR MKHWANAZI: I said if there is a need that he should stabilise the situation in Piet Retief, he should right on ahead and do it.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you know about Piet Retief, according to what happened in Piet Retief?

MR MKHWANAZI: I had the information that MDM structures were being attacked in Piet Retief and that is one of the reasons why I said he could go ahead and do anything he thought fit in order to quell the violence.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know Mr Keshwa?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I don't.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say Mr Gushu was under your command, you were his MK commander as you put it?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is so.

MS VAN DER WALT: So except for the self-defence unit that according to your testimony he had a free hand in, he could establish them, you gave no specific instruction to him in terms of these self-defence units, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he had to see his way as to how he established them.

MS VAN DER WALT: And he had to receive instructions from you, from nobody else?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he received instructions with regard to matters in which I was directly involved but with SDU's, because of security reasons I did not want to get involved with SDU's. I was not involved in other structures.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt are you nearly finished?

MS VAN DER WALT: He could instruct the self-defence units because he received instructions from you to establish them, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: I don't understand your question.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Gushu could give instructions to the self-defence units because he received the instruction from you to establish these self-defence units?

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, he could control the self-defence unit when he established it, he was entitled to do so?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: There was no direct instruction from you to Gushu to shoot Mr Msibi and to rob him of his money?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I would assume you do have?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We can do that at 2 o'clock.

J A MKHWANAZI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MKHWANAZI: Mr Mkhwanazi, what is your present occupation?

MR MKHWANAZI: I'm working for the government.

MR HATTINGH: Just expand on that, in what department and in what capacity?

MR MKHWANAZI: South African Secret Services, VIP Protection.

MR HATTINGH: Could you just give us some indication as to what standard at school did you pass?

MR MKHWANAZI: I went as far as standard nine.

MR HATTINGH: When you initially made your application for amnesty, on the application form there is not a date or the year is not shown on the last page of the application, can you assist us and tell us in which year this application was made?

MR MKHWANAZI: I cannot remember the date but it's been a long time, in '96 I think.

CHAIRPERSON: The application was received in '97. You will see the number of the front page. I'm talking about his application itself.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. I take it that is the reference number on the first page, thank you.

At the time when your application was submitted, perhaps you could just tell us who completed this application form?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was Mohammed, my attorney.

MR HATTINGH: And where reference is made on page 5 of the application form under paragraph 12, it is noted:

Do you see that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Which paragraph?

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 12 on page 5 of your application form.

MR PATEL: May I just interject for a moment Mr Chairman. The witness will probably have the incorrect application form which I pointed out earlier, I will give him mine.

MR HATTINGH: You will note in paragraph 12 of your application form on page 5 it refers to:

MR MKHWANAZI: Will you please repeat your question?

MR HATTINGH: Your application for amnesty consists of seven pages, on page 5 thereof at the bottom under paragraph 12 it is noted:

Do you see that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I can see that.

MR HATTINGH: The background statement that you're referring to in your application, is that the background statement that we find in the bundle of documents from pages 5 to and including page 8?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I think that's the one.

MR HATTINGH: Did you assist in preparing this background statement or how did it come about that it was included into your amnesty application?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, are you referring to page 75?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, I'm referring to page 5, 6 and 7 of the bundle of documents, Volume 1. Just to confirm, what we see on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 under the heading:

... was that the background statement that was annexed to your initial application for amnesty?

MR MKHWANAZI: The statement is long and I therefore am not in the position to say now whether it is the one or not but I think it is the one.

MR HATTINGH: If I may just refer you also to page 4 of your application where you, under paragraphs (a) and (b), where requested to state your political objective sought to be achieved and your justification regarding such acts, you also referred to the Background Statement. All I want to clarify is that in your application, the Background Statement that you refer to which you incorporated into your application, whether it was in fact the background statement that we find on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the bundle of documents?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think so, if that is the statement that was read by Mndebele.

MR HATTINGH: Now the question is, did you assist in the preparation of the background statement or how did it come about that you incorporated it into your application for amnesty?

MR MKHWANAZI: This was prepared at one of the offices of the lawyers where I was present as well.

MR HATTINGH: Did you read it at the time when it was incorporated into your application form?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think so, that my attorney tried to interpret this to me.

MR HATTINGH: Are you not fluent or conversant with the English language?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you have a problem with English, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: My language is siZulu.

MR HATTINGH: The question is, do you have a problem with the English language, do you understand it, can you read it?

MR MKHWANAZI: I have already indicated that I am not fluent in the language.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps you can then just in general tell us what value can we place on this background statement that was incorporated into your application form to show your political objectives and your justification for the acts.

MR MKHWANAZI: Would you please repeat?

MR HATTINGH: In your application form on pages 3, 4 and 5 as well as page 6, in answer to various questions on the application form you see:

In the light of the problems that you have with the English language the question is, what value can be placed on the contents of this Background Statement to tell us what your vies were at the time when your application was submitted for amnesty?

MR MKHWANAZI: This Background Statement covers what situation prevailed at Ermelo at the time. When we prepared this statement we did it together with other members who were applying, who are actually applying and trying to reflect upon what was prevailing at Ermelo at the time.

MR HATTINGH: I take it that in preparation for this hearing you once again went through this Background Statement, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Did you or did you not?

MR MKHWANAZI: I said I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Is there anything in this particular Background Statement with which you would wish disassociated yourself with? Anything that would be incorrect in this statement, this Background Statement?

MR MKHWANAZI: What's in the statement ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think that the proper question would be: "Is there anything that you disagree with insofar as it effects you"? Are you able to say or not?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think there isn't area here that disagrees with my position.

MR HATTINGH: Can we then take it as indicated on page 6 of the bundle, the middle of the page of this Background Statement that all decisions to eliminate members of the Black Cats were taken in this committee, referring to that Special Committee of which you were a member at the time?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if I understand your evidence correctly, only two decisions were taken and that was the decision regarding Jwi Zwane as well as the decision regarding Chris Ngwenya, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, those are the two decisions that were taken by the committee.

MR HATTINGH: Were any other decisions taken by yourself, that is not in consultation with the committee, regarding elimination of any particular person?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I cannot remember any instance except for the self-defence units.

MR HATTINGH: On page 7 of the bundle under the heading, it's towards the end of the page, under the hearing:

... it is stated that a number of robberies were committed by Mzwandile Gushu acting with members of self-defence units. It also states that the amnesty application of Jabu Mkhwanazi is referred to in this regard. Did the people who committed those robberies report back to you regarding the robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: The instruction that I gave to Mzwandile was that he should use his own discretion and report back to me.

MR HATTINGH: Would you then answer my question, did he in fact then report back to you about the robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: I have already indicated to you that he came to report to me on what had transpired.

CHAIRPERSON: Including the robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he did.

MR HATTINGH: This Background Statement deals with a

period of approximately two and a half years, do you agree with that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think so but I'm not obviously accurate about this.

MR HATTINGH: Now the question is, on how many robberies did Mr Gushu in particular or any other person report back to you during this two and a half year period?

MR MKHWANAZI: I cannot remember very well, I just remember that he was charged for the Piet Retief and the Mine robbery, but I cannot be sure as to how many robberies he reported on.

MR HATTINGH: If we take the two mentioned robberies as a starting point, did he report to you about any other robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: Chairperson, may the speaker please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he report to you on any robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the advocate is talking about two particular robberies, I'm not too sure which. Answer the question that he puts to you on those two robberies.

I'm not too sure which robberies you're talking about.

MR HATTINGH: I think your evidence is that you just said that Gushu reported back to you about the Piet Retief robbery as well as the robbery at the construction site and I ...[intervention]

MR PATEL: That is not evidence of this witness Mr Chairman. There was a blanket question: "Did he report back to you about robberies"? and the answer was a blanket answer. Perhaps Mr Hattingh should clear it up.

MR HATTINGH: I apologise Mr Chairman, I thought I heard two places mentioned by the witness when he said there were reports, but in any event I'll take it.

Would you then be specific about the robberies that were reported to you by Mr Gushu?

MR MKHWANAZI: What clarification?

CHAIRPERSON: The robberies that he referred to you that he reported back to you on, where did they take place, do you know? Can you remember?

MR MKHWANAZI: Insofar as the construction company one is concerned, I went to hospital to see him and he told me that he was shot. They went there looking for firearms. Another one that I still remember is the Piet Retief one.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the one in respect of Mr Msibi?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now the question I'm asking flowing from this is: did Mr Gushu report to you any further robberies which were committed during that period of two and a half years for the purpose of arming or financing the SDU's?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I started talking I did indicate that the ones that I still remember are the two, it is possible that he might have told me about some other robberies.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps I could ask you, put the question differently. Are you prepared to disclose information with regard to any other reports of robberies committed by Mr Gushu or any of the SDU's?

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's put it this way.

As I understood your answer about other robberies, you say he may or may not have reported to you, can you remember?

MR MKHWANAZI: Chairperson, I do not remember quite well. The one robbery that I remember is the Piet Retief one and the mine one. I do not remember whether he did report on other robberies and if he did I may have forgotten.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mkhwanazi, the question remains, would you be prepared to disclose information regarding other reports of robberies?

CHAIRPERSON: From Mr Gushu?

MR HATTINGH: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But he just says he can't remember so how can the preparedness thereof be answered?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, obviously if his inability to remember is just an explanation or an excuse for him not willing to tell this Committee about it ...

CHAIRPERSON: How do you come to that conclusion? ...[inaudible] follow as far as I am concerned. If a persons says: "I can't remember", that he is able now to answer a question which takes a form of his preparedness to answer a question on that issue. How does he answer truthfully if he can't remember?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I'll leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless I'm misunderstanding the question totally.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I'll leave it at that.

In your supplementary statement, the one which you'll find on pages 75 to 78, you mention a:

That is in paragraph 4 on page 76. Do you see that, the second last line on page 76?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I can see that.

MR HATTINGH: That:

is also incorporated into your supplementary statement. This document that you refer to, is that the one that we find on pages 9 up to page 19 of the bundle of documents?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Have you or perhaps I can just rephrase myself, did you take part in the preparation of this:

MR MKHWANAZI: I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you participate in the drafting of it?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did partake in the drafting of the statement.

MR HATTINGH: Did you read this:

before it was annexed or included into your supplementary statement?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I think I did read it.

MR HATTINGH: Is there anything in this statement pertaining to you which is not correct, as far as you are concerned?

MR MKHWANAZI: As far as I know, none.

MR HATTINGH: Now if we turn to page 9 of the bundle of documents, that's the first page of this:

Under paragraph 5 it is stated that:

Were you present at that public meeting?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the answer? Just repeat that answer.

MR MKHWANAZI: I said I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: On the next page in paragraph 6 reference is made to certain Annexures showing details of attacks and events and incidents during the relevant period. Did you assist in preparing this Annexure reflecting the events or the incidents that occurred in that period?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was present in some instances. There are some things that I can own up to and others, no. I was just briefed by the committee about that.

MR HATTINGH: The question is, did you assist in the preparation of this Annexure?

MR MKHWANAZI: I did assist in instances where I was present and not in others where I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: Would it then be correct if we deduct from that that you are not aware of other incidents, relevant incidents pertaining to that period which are not reflected on this Annexure A as well as Annexure A1?

MR MKHWANAZI: I am not in the position of remembering all the incidents because I was not familiar with the people around here and I was also not recording things as they happened and I therefore cannot be sure.

MR HATTINGH: But you are not aware of any incidents, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: I've already stated that I was not familiar with the people around here. There are certain instances or incidents that I knew and others not. I therefore am not in the position to say whether the information here is complete or not.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately when did you come to Ermelo and commenced your work here?

MR MKHWANAZI: I came in the '90', possibly in 1991. I do not remember quite well.

MR HATTINGH: Irrespective of exactly when you actually came to Ermelo, what was the command structure for MK or the armed wing of the ANC at the time, with specific reference to your own position?

MR MKHWANAZI: When I came back to the country I came back here under the direct command of the Chief of Staff, Chris Hani to whom I reported directly.

MR HATTINGH: At this stage I'm not talking about the people or the MK commanders working under you. What I would like to find out is about the structures above you.

MR MKHWANAZI: I was trying to answer exactly to that, that when I came back to South Africa I came back here flowing the instruction of Chris Hani under whose direct instructions I operated.

MR HATTINGH: And in the period that followed your stay in Ermelo, you only reported once to Chris Hani, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you never request instructions from any other person in the MK structure with regard with what you had to do in the Ermelo area?

MR MKHWANAZI: We used the need to know principle in the military structures. It was therefore not necessary for me to communicate this to anybody who was not necessarily connected to this, and if not, there would be a committee who would make the necessary decisions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, where are we getting with this cross-examination? We are we going to with it?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, all I would like to find out is to what extent the Groote Schuur Accord during 1990 had an influence on the instructions that this witness or this applicant had in his furtherance of the aims and objectives of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get stuck(?).

ADV SANDI: Ja, but Mr Hattingh, the Groote Schuur Accord as I understand it, was it not essentially about the suspension of offensive operations? Wouldn't that be different to the kind of operations the applicants are talking about here, where they allege that these were essentially defensive operations? Wouldn't the Groote Schuur Minute be different to the situation we're dealing with?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps I cannot answer it, perhaps I should just ask the witness to tell us whether he was aware of the Groote Schuur Accord.

Mr Mkhwanazi, were you aware of the signing of an Accord, the Groote Schuur Accord in 1990 between the ANC and the then government?

MR MKHWANAZI: I had an idea but I didn't have the final details and the signing of that Accord did not bring violence to an end.

MR HATTINGH: You received your instruction from Chris Hani prior to that Groote Schuur Accord, did the fact that the Groote Schuur Accord dealt with the undertaking from the ANC to stop the armed struggle, did that not have an influence on your instructions of what you were to do in this area?

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Hattingh, let's get it into perspective, isn't Mr Sandi correct? That Accord was an agreement as between the ANC in the perspective of its armed struggle as against the apartheid regime run by the Nationalists and its endeavours to attack the ANC structures and that's where this truce between the two, the government and the government in waiting occurred, is that not correct?

What we're discussing here would possibly fall into the category of defensive and offensive operations not covered by the Accord. I'm merely suggesting that.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may just ask one question and ask the witness:

Whatever your knowledge was at the time of the Groote Schuur Accord, didn't you think that it was necessary at the time to go back to your MK command or the Chief of Staff of MK and to ask him whether his initial instructions of 1989 were to be amended in the light of the Accord?

MR MKHWANAZI: Mr Hattingh, I think I have already indicated that the Groote Schuur Accord did not bring violence to an end. There was violence at a place where I was and therefore there was no need for me to go back to my commander.

It was not easy for that matter as well, to go back to Chris Hani for a new instruction because I was operating underground.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know or do you today know the person in the ANC, Mr Ronnie Mamwepa?

MR MKHWANAZI: He is the ANC spokesperson, he is therefore not involved in the MK.

MR HATTINGH: At the time when your supplementary statement was made and the Brief Historical Background was annexed to it, the problem that I have is how do we explain paragraph 8 on page 10 where it states that you together with the other people met Chris Hani to obtain further instructions? That was in July 1990. And that you were only then advised to return to this area to set up self-defence units and to arm yourselves.

MR MKHWANAZI: I think I have indicated that I saw Chris only once and I alone saw him. Maybe the person who typed this made a mistake. I never went to Chris Hani in the company of Mndebele.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr Mkhwanazi, at the time when your statement was made you had already indicated that you had an opportunity to read this background or further the:

And you already indicated that you read the document once again in preparation for the hearing and you also indicated that everything is correct as far as concerns you.

MR MKHWANAZI: I did state at the beginning that the Historical Background was prepared by myself and other members who have also applied for amnesty. I am saying a mistake may as well have happened by including my name.

The truth is that I never went to Chris Hani in the company of Mndebele.

MR HATTINGH: Can you then explain the contents of paragraph 11 on page 11? Do you agree with the contents of paragraph 11?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, JJ Mabena and myself once discussed this.

MR HATTINGH: Now if you agree to this paragraph you say that:

Was Mabena part of the MK command structure?

MR MKHWANAZI: He was Secretary General of Cosatu and he was therefore not involved with the MK.

MR HATTINGH: Then if we turn to page 12, paragraph 13 where it is stated that:

Were you present at that meeting?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: Did you take part in the peace initiatives mentioned in paragraph 14?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think I have already indicated that I was underground. People who were in the Committee, Mndebele, Nkonyane and Zwane, these are the people that I encouraged to do that.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware of these peace initiatives?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was aware, that is why I am saying I was also trying to encourage them to participate in the piece talks.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph 15 it is stated that:

What orders were received at that stage from the ANC command, or do you not agree with the contents of this paragraph?

MR MKHWANAZI: I did state that when I came back into the country in 1989, I received a loud and clear instruction that if there was violence where I was I would have to act to try and stabilise the situation. That is one reason that led to the formation of the committee, so that I wouldn't have to take decisions single-handedly. We then formed the committee so that we could share ideas before taking a decision.

MR HATTINGH: The reasons for the assassination of Jwi Zwane, were they discussed by your Special Committee?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, members of the committee realised how much people were dying, like shooting the coffin at a funeral.

Two or three people were killed at the funeral I think and it was then decided. There were many other cases as well. There were cases that led to the committee taking such a decision.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Mr Zwane?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I didn't know him.

MR HATTINGH: You never met him before he got killed?

MR MKHWANAZI: I didn't know him.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give an indication as to when this decision was made by your Special Committee to have Jwi Zwane assassinated?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do not remember quite well, but I think it must be a week or three weeks before he was actually assassinated.

MR HATTINGH: Could you then explain, he was assassinated only in July 1991, now if one had regard to the Brief Historical Background Statement which we're dealing with now, it would appear that this decision was in fact made in the previous year?

MR MKHWANAZI: Would you please repeat the question?

MR HATTINGH: Zwane was assassinated in July 1991. From a reading of this Background Statement on page 12, paragraph 13 it is stated that in October 1990 something happened and thereafter further events and then we get to the assassination of Zwane in 1991, July 1991.

MR MKHWANAZI: I have already stated that the Special Committee got together, looked at the violence and tried to identify the people behind it and it was specifically discovered that Jwi was playing a very prominent role. There was a funeral at some stage and Jwi came and shot the coffin and the corpse inside and shooting people as well.

Some people were found lying dead without their private parts and a decision was decided or should I say the decision was taken after the violence exasibated.

MR HATTINGH: When one has regard to the Annexures A and A1, it would appear that as from July 1991 there was relative calm in the area because not many further incidents were noted in the following 8 months. Can you explain the reasons then why Chris Ngwenya was to be assassinated?

MR MKHWANAZI: After Jwi was assassinated the violence exasibated because we experience revenge attacks after which things remained the same. The violence never subsided. I think Mr Mndebele did indicate that there is no accuracy in the list of dates. The situation never got better, instead it became worse.

MR HATTINGH: What information was at your disposal, at your Special Committee when the decision was made in February 1992 that Chris Ngwenya was to be assassinated?

MR MKHWANAZI: There was violence and Chris was behind the violence. There was an instance where people were shot, having come from school or people who were coming from school. That was one of the cases and it was therefore necessary that such a decision be taken because people were suffering.

The people who were behind this were the Black Cats. Nobody else was behind the violence except that Black Cats.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to this Special Committee, was it disbanded at some stage?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do not remember which year it was. I decided to go back where I stayed because I had already been granted amnesty to come back home and start a new life. That is when the Special Committee came to an end.

MR HATTINGH: Exactly which year was that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do not remember quite well but I think it was around '93.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence earlier today you said that you're not aware of any action taken by Gushu or the SDU's which fell outside the command or your instructions, is that correct?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to Advice Gwala, what were the reasons that Gushu told you afterwards were the reasons for his assassination of Advice Gwala? The family of Advice Gwala would like to know that.

MR MKHWANAZI: Gushu told me that Advice Gwala was connected to the Sasol Management. He was an organiser for AWUSA which AWUSA was killing MDM members at the mine and he was organising a counter-revolutionary youth against the structures at Mbalendle and that he had a hand with the Black Chains, the Black Chains who used to terrorise people at Mbalendle.

MR HATTINGH: When the SDU's were put into place, did you supply them with any firearms or any weapons?

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave Gushu the responsibility to take care of that.

MR HATTINGH: The question is, did you supply any firearms?

MR MKHWANAZI: No.

MR HATTINGH: When did you meet Mr Chris Hani in ...[intervention]

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, can I just get clarification here?

Did you supply Mr Gushu personally with any firearms, Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did give him the one that he used for Jwi and Chris's assassination.

ADV BOSMAN: How many in total then? I just want to make sure I understand you.

MR MKHWANAZI: I gave him an AK47 and a Makaroff pistol.

MR HATTINGH: When you met with Mr Chris Hani in the Transkei, I did not quite hear your answer previously, approximately when did you meet him in the Transkei?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do not remember but I think it was 1990 or 1991 even though I'm not sure.

MR HATTINGH: Did you report to Mr Chris Hani about the occurrence of armed robberies with a view of supplying the SDU's with finances and arms?

MR MKHWANAZI: I explained to him about the prevailing situation at Ermelo, Piet Retief and Secunda. I further indicated to him that I have instructed someone to form the SDU's so that this very same person must see how the SDU's operated.

MR HATTINGH: Will you please answer the question?

MR MKHWANAZI: I thought I have answered the question because I have stated that I informed and explained to Mr Chris Hani about the prevailing situation in the different townships and indicated to him that I have already instructed someone to form SDU's and that I informed this person to make use of his own discretion and initiative as to the formation and the arming of the SDU's.

MR HATTINGH: Did you discuss or report to Mr Chris Hani about the armed robberies that had taken place to finance or to arm the SDU's? It's just a yes or a no.

MR MKHWANAZI: I think I have already explained to you that I informed him that I have mandated this person as to the formation of the SDU's and the arming thereof.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mkhwanazi, are you not prepared to answer the question?

CHAIRPERSON: What's wrong with the answer?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I did not hear an answer to the question whether he reported to Mr Chris Hani about the armed robberies.

CHAIRPERSON: Repeat your answer please.

MR MKHWANAZI: I am saying I did inform him about the prevailing situation in the different townships and I also informed him that I have already instructed a person to form the SDU's and make use of his own discretion as to the arming of the SDU's.

MR HATTINGH: From this answer can we then take it that Mr Chris Hani was aware of the fact that armed robberies were being committed in the furtherance of the aims and objectives of the ANC?

MR MKHWANAZI: There were no rules and regulations guiding this situation. If we were facing a war situation we had to make use of whatever means at our disposal.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think Chris Hani knew that robberies were being committed in order to fund the SDU's?

MR MKHWANAZI: I cannot assure you on that because I did not specifically tell him that we were engaged in robberies to arm the SDU's.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, if I can just clarify this? Did you foresee the possibility of robberies at the time when you gave the instruction Mr Mkhwanazi?

MR MKHWANAZI: Would you please repeat the question?

ADV BOSMAN: At the time when you gave Mr Gushu this wide mandate to do what he thought was necessary in his discretion with regard to the SDU's, did you foresee the possibility that he may carry out armed robberies?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did. I did think about the possibility because we didn't have firearms. We didn't have money and therefore there was not any other alternative.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to Jwi Zwane, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not say you are finished?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, I said thank you for, I finally got the answer to my question which I've been trying to get the past 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, it must be my mistake.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mkhwanazi, with regard to Jwi Zwane, his family or his brother will say that Jwi Zwane did not play the role that the applicants including you would like to picture of him in the conflict which occurred at the time in this area.

MR MKHWANAZI: If you say that, I think he must have had his eyes closed not see what was happening. Nobody in this Ermelo community doesn't know that Zwane was leading the Black Cats. I'm shocked that there is someone who doesn't know that.

MR HATTINGH: I would further wish to put it to you with regard to Jwi Zwane, that he was working with his brother, Elias Zwane in the business and that they were in fact in competition with Mr John Mndebele and that may have been the reason for the assassination of Jwi Zwane.

MR MKHWANAZI: I think Mr Mndebele did indicate how far his business was in relation to Jwi Zwane's brother's business. John Mndebele has about six or seven shops. These are the people perhaps who may say something but finally Jwi Zwane was involved in violence. We would not go out and shoot an innocent person.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to Chris Ngwenya evidence will be led that there was apparently a problem between Chris Ngwenya and John Mndebele and John Mndebele in fact a day before Chris Ngwenya was killed filed a complaint with the police pertaining to Chris Ngwenya, were you aware of that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I think you'll be correct to direct that question to Mr Mndebele. I have no answer to it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but did you know of that report to the police before the death?

MR MKHWANAZI: No.

MR HATTINGH: I merely wish to put it to you that it would appear that there was in fact a personal vendetta between Mr Chris Ngwenya and Mr John Mndebele and that the killing of Chris Ngwenya was not politically motivated.

MR MKHWANAZI: John Mndebele was not the one taking decisions about the assassination of people. I don't think he would have had that influence to mislead us so that he could protect his business interests. We could not be misled into that.

Other members within the Special Committee here at Ermelo knew Chris, they knew he was behind the violence and there was therefore no way in which John Mndebele could have influenced that decision.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to Lindiwe Nkosi and Thembisile Eldah Nkambule, I would like to put it to you just for your comments if you have any, that they were shot during the same incident in which Chris Ngwenya was shot but that they were shot after Chris Ngwenya had already been shot and that they were in fact not shot by accident but that they were in fact followed and shot after Chris Ngwenya had been killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he be able to say whether that is true or not?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, it's merely a fact that he made application for amnesty for their death and the shooting at Thembisile Nkambule and I'm merely making the statement for if he wants to respond to that. That is the only reason.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't there so, I don't know, whatever answer you're going to get is probably hearsay but anyway.

Can you answer the last question?

MR MKHWANAZI: I'm not in the position to answer that because I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: Lastly Mr Mkhwanazi, if in fact Mr Gushu committed these murders on your instructions with political motives and in the furtherance of the aims of the ANC, could you perhaps explain why no-one from the ANC, including yourself who gave him those instructions, came to his assistance at his criminal trial?

CHAIRPERSON: How would they give him assistance?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I suppose it's up to this witness to say, to give us that answer, to say what assistance was possible if any.

CHAIRPERSON: What assistance are you talking about?

MR HATTINGH: Any assistance in support of someone who is now facing a grave jail sentence where he acted on your instructions in the furtherance of the aims of a political organisation who was by the time when this person went through his trial the government of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of assistance, evidence, financial, whatever?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you talking about?

MR HATTINGH: Financial, evidence, support.

CHAIRPERSON: How relevant is it, whether he was supported financially or not? The fact that if he had to be supported financially he'd still go to jail, he was found guilty.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would submit that it is relevant as far as that it would show that that was in fact the position at the time and that we are dealing with today is not a fabrication of the event, that in fact there were instructions and in fact there was support and reasons for Gushu to act the way he did and that he was in fact acting on behalf of the ANC and per the instructions of this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mkhwanazi, you knew that Mr Gushu was on trial not so?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The advocate is putting to you that you did not support him in any way when he was on trial, he wants to know why.

MR MKHWANAZI: I don't know what kind of support he is talking about. Is he talking about financial support? Mzwandile had a lawyer and really I don't know what kind of support he is talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: I also asked the question and he says financial and just moral support perhaps. Did you attend the trial? I don't really know what the purpose of the question is but I'm asking it also to get finished with this.

MR MKHWANAZI: I didn't go to the trial because I was avoiding being arrested. I didn't know what he had said. Insofar as money is concerned the Ermelo Committee tried to raise funds for his legal assistance.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir, just one point.

Mr Mkhwanazi, in your evidence in chief you said you were only advised by Mr Gushu about the assassination of the late Advice Gwala after he had already carried out the operation, do you remember that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I do.

MR MAPOMA: And you said you did approve or what he did, do you remember that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: You went on to say that in any event complaints were made to you by Mr JJ Mabena about the actions of Mr Advice Gwala, do you remember that?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I do remember that.

MR MAPOMA: What complaints were they that Mr JJ Mabena gave to you of Advice Gwala?

MR MKHWANAZI: He told me that Advice Gwala was part and parcel of the Sasol Management dealing with the Cosatu members of the Sasol employees killing some of the Cosatu members at the mine during stay-aways and that he was organising the youth in the township, the youth that became known as the Mbalendle Cultural Youth whose aim it was to oppose the ANC Youth League and that he had a hand with the Black Chains.

MR MAPOMA: Now this discussion, did it take place before or after the assassination of Mr Gwala?

MR MKHWANAZI: We discussed this before Mr Gwala was assassinated.

MR MAPOMA: Then did you not take any decision about what must be done about Mr Advice Gwala?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I did not.

MR MAPOMA: I'm asking this question Mr Mkhwanazi, because the mother of Advice Gwala says or in fact will say when she gives evidence, that Mr Gushu said in court that he killed Advice Gwala on the instructions of Mr JJ Mabena, do you have any knowledge about that?

MR BLACK: That's ...[indistinct] Whatever she may or may not have heard, but that's quite clearly incorrect. Gushu at no stage said that he killed Mr Gwala on the instructions of Mr Mabena.

ADV SANDI: Isn't Mr Mapoma referring to the evidence in court?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, evidence in the criminal trial, I'm sorry.

MR BLACK: I beg your pardon I misunderstood.

MR MAPOMA: If I may just repeat this. What the mother of Advice says is that Gushu said in the criminal court he killed Advice on the instructions of Mr JJ Mabena. Now what I want to know from you, do you know of any involvement of Mr Mabena in the killing of Advice Gwala?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, there is nothing that I know except that he briefed me about Mr Gwala and nothing beyond that.

MR MAPOMA: Had you knew of his involvement, would you be ready to tell the Committee?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I would.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mkhwanazi, up until the time that you were granted the amnesty in 1993, how easy was it for you to move around?

MR MKHWANAZI: It was not as easy because the Security Forces had deployed Askaris around and these Askari members are people with whom we trained, they knew me. They could easily identify me, pinpoint me, shoot me or get me arrested. That was after the ANC was unbanned.

MR PATEL: Your initial stay in Piet Retief when you just arrived in the country, was that residence intended to be permanent.

MR MKHWANAZI: No, no.

MR PATEL: In other words you understood it to be a temporary placement?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is correct.

MR PATEL: It's been put to you that Mr Mndebele laid a charge or a complaint against Mr Ngwenya the day before he was killed, when was the decision taken or rather how long before he was killed was the decision taken to assassinate Mr Ngwenya?

MR MKHWANAZI: I do not remember exactly but I think it must have been a month.

MR PATEL: Sorry, I didn't get that.

Insofar as the might be relevant, this question of support for Mr Gushu at his criminal ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It's not relevant.

MR PATEL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mkhwanazi, it was asked of you whether you received any salary or any compensation and your answer was: "No", how did you survive during this fairly long period that you were working underground?

MR MKHWANAZI: I was staying with Mr Mndebele. That is one person who made it easy for me to survive.

ADV BOSMAN: And then you did say that it was not easy for you to move around during this period, how did you sort of communicate with Mr Gushu during this time? In what manner did you communicate?

MR MKHWANAZI: If Mr Gushu was in Secunda, I would telephone Mr JJ Mabena's office and indicate to him that I would like to be connected to Mr Gushu and we would then decide where to meet personally and that would be where we would discuss issues.

ADV BOSMAN: How often did these communications take place?

MR MKHWANAZI: We were not communicating frequently, maybe we would meet once in a month's time or twice in two month's time or twice in one month's time.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you ever during this time feel that you reason to limit Mr Gushu's very wide mandate?

MR MKHWANAZI: At the time the violent situation was terrible and therefore I would not have reduced the mandate. I would only do that if the violence had subsided but that was not the case.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mndebele if I remember correctly, said that he knew that the issue of robbery fell outside the general ANC policy at national level, were you also aware of that?

MR MKHWANAZI: I know that that is not the policy of the ANC but the situation under which we lived at the time was that we had no alternative.

ADV BOSMAN: That evidence was also given by Mr Gushu, but did you discuss this policy with Mr Gushu at all, did you say to him: "This is a general ANC policy but under the circumstances we are not going to follow it, we have to take emergency sort of steps"?

MR MKHWANAZI: The decisions that we took at the time were inspired by the circumstances and therefore Mzwandile took such decisions because he knew that we didn't have any other alternative.

ADV BOSMAN: ...[inaudible] Mr Mkhwanazi, I don't think you really followed my question. What I really wanted to know is, did you make Mr Gushu aware that you were actually him an instruction which goes outside the policy of the ANC at national level?

MR MKHWANAZI: The instruction that I gave was that he should form and arm the self-defence units. It was therefore up to him to take the necessary steps as to how the self-defence units should be armed and that's what decision he took, armed robbery.

ADV BOSMAN: No, that I follow. I will leave it at that. Just one more question and it's just a question of clarification. The evidence has been that you were a three-man committee of which Mr John Mndebele was one and I, the evidence was that you were a three-man committee that took the decision about the elimination of Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane and Mr Mndebele was one of the members and yet you said Mr Mndebele could not possibly have influenced this committee. If you could just explain that because I find it contrary to logic.

MR MKHWANAZI: There were four of us in the Committee and Mr Mndebele was one of the members. What I was saying, they had actually asked me, they indicated that Mr Mndebele took the decision because it was a personal vendetta.

What I was saying was that it was not possible for Mr Mndebele to influence a decision in a committee of four members because there were many other people here at Ermelo who knew exactly what was happening. He could not have influenced us to kill Chris because of his own personal vendetta. These other people here at Ermelo knew exactly what situation or atmosphere prevailed here.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, thank you. Thank you Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mkhwanazi, this Special Committee, did it have a chairman?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, it didn't have a chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did it have a co-ordinator of some kind? How would you call meetings?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, we did not have, but when we needed to convene meetings we would communicate amongst ourselves that we should convene a meeting. That is how we would discuss the issues.

ADV SANDI: If you were to rank members of this Special Committee in terms of their influence, who would you say was the most influential member of the committee?

MR MKHWANAZI: Every member played almost the same role, so it is very difficult for me to pinpoint or differentiate as to who played the most important role.

ADV SANDI: This meeting you had with Mr Hani, did you tell him about this Special Committee?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did, I told him that there was people that I was working with and I was making decisions in consultation with them because I did not want to take decisions single-handedly.

ADV SANDI: Did you mention the names of those people to Mr Hani?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I did not mention the names.

ADV SANDI: Did you mention the name of Mzwandile Gushu to Mr Hani?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I did not.

ADV SANDI: This meeting you had with Mr Hani, did you tell your colleagues about it, members of the Special Committee?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, I did report back that we held a meeting or I held a meeting with the Chief of Staff and reported the situation in Ermelo as well as the surrounding areas, as well as the decisions that we took or we were taking.

ADV SANDI: Just one final question. When you met Mr Hani did it appear to you that someone had been in contact with him to inform him as to the happenings in Ermelo as well as other surrounding areas?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he did appear to have quite a lot of information. As to where he got the information I do not know, whether it was from the media or from a certain person because there was quite wide media coverage with regard to the happenings in other areas. It's possible that he got the information from other ANC structures or the regional offices were briefing him or maybe the Executive Committee but he did have information. As to where and how he got it I don't know. I do believe he got it from the Executive Committee.

ADV SANDI: I will have to apologise if I'm repeating this question to you, I may have asked you. Did you mention the name of Mzwandile Gushu to Mr Hani?

MR MKHWANAZI: No, I did not.

ADV SANDI: Did you have any particular reason for not doing so?

MR MKHWANAZI: For security reasons.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Mkhwanazi.

ADV BOSMAN: Flowing this question put by my colleague Mr Mkhwanazi, Mr Gushu in his application form states that he was an MK soldier and the previous witnesses refer to him as their commander, did you place Mr Gushu in the position of commander? In other words, did you in fact as it were promote Mr Gushu to an MK commander? I don't have clarity on that.

MR MKHWANAZI: There were certain trained units and these units would become part of the MK structures and Mr Gushu was part of the MK structures because he was trained within the country and so he had all the authority to form the defence units and become a commander thereof. That was part of his duties as a member of the MK structure which operated within the country.

ADV BOSMAN: Do I understand you correctly then that Mr Gushu had virtually by his activities placed himself in the position of a commander?

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, he was the commander of the self-defence unit. He had to be the commander according to the military ranks.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't want to belabour the issue Mr Mkhwanazi, but I still don't have clarity in my own mind. I don't really know military procedures, but if a person becomes a commander someone must confer that authority on him, is that not so?

MR MKHWANAZI: That is the regular army that has such a procedure, where there is finance but the circumstances under or a situation which is normal, but with our situation there was no normality so things were not done quite procedurally. In the position that he was he was supposed to be the commander because he was commanding other people directly.

ADV BOSMAN: So he had worked himself into a position of a commander? I just want to make sure that I understand you, I'm not setting any trap here.

MR MKHWANAZI: Yes, the work he did pushed him to the position of a commander, as well as the training that he got.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a five minute adjournment.

MR PATEL: I call Mr Nicolas Zwane.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zwane, what language do you speak?

MR ZWANE: I'll render my testimony in Zulu.

NICOLAS ZWANE: (sworn states)

MR PATEL: Mr Zwane, where were you born?

MR ZWANE: In Ermelo.

MR PATEL: And have you lived your entire life in the Ermelo area?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: At the time of the commission of the offences for which you claim amnesty, what was your occupation?

MR ZWANE: I was a teacher in Ermelo.

MR PATEL: And what is your present occupation?

MR ZWANE: I'm still a teacher.

MR PATEL: At the time of the commission of the offences for which you claim amnesty, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I was.

MR PATEL: Could you tell the Committee which organisation were you a member of?

MR ZWANE: I was a member of the Civic Organisation in Ermelo, which is now called SANCO it's still a Civic Organisation. I was also a member of the ANC.

MR PATEL: Did you hold - were an officer bearer of any of these organisations?

MR ZWANE: Yes, within the ANC I was just an ordinary member or supporter and within SANCO I was a Deputy Chairperson.

MR PATEL: Now you've heard the evidence of Mr Mndebele regarding the Background Statement. Before we get there, there is some discrepancy between the evidence of Mr Mndebele and Mr Mkhwanazi with regard to who went to Mr Chris Hani. What is your recollection of the events, who was it that attended the meeting with Mr Chris Hani in Johannesburg in Shell House?

MR ZWANE: It was John Mndebele, myself Nicolas Zwane, as well as Silas Nkonyane.

MR PATEL: Now with regard to the Background Statement that I read and Mr Mndebele confirmed, do you agree with that Background Statement insofar as it relates to you?

MR ZWANE: Could you repeat your question please?

MR PATEL: The Background Statement, the one which, if I may direct your attention to, which appears on pages 9 including Exhibit A and A1 up to page 17, 18 sorry, 19. That is the Background Statement I read and Mr Mndebele confirmed. Do you recall being present at that time?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do recall I was present.

MR PATEL: Do you confirm the correctness of that statement insofar as it relates to you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do confirm.

MR PATEL: In particular, do you confirm paragraph 16 which appears on page 13 of the Background Statement?

MR ZWANE: Are you referring to this bundle that I have in front of me?

MR PATEL: Yes. On page 13, paragraph 16.

MR ZWANE: There are certain numbers written in big letters as well as small letters, could you please assist me in pinpointing the correct paragraph you're referring to? Yes, I do agree with what is contained herein.

MR PATEL: According to the schedule which appears on page 20 to 22 of the bundle, your name appears under paragraph 3 at the bottom of page 20, is that you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct, this is my name although there's a slight spelling mistake but I think this is my name. My name is Nicolas Mfundisi Zwane. There is a spelling error which Mtundisi. They have used a "t" instead of an "f".

MR PATEL: We apologise for the error. According to the schedule you are claiming amnesty for the murder of Jwi Zwane, do you confirm that?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: The attempted murder of Happy Mshlongo, a Sibusiso Tito Nkosi and Eric Nkosi, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: That is true.

MR PATEL: For the murder of Chris Ngwenya, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: You also claim amnesty for the murder of Lindiwe Nkosi, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PATEL: And you also claim amnesty for the attempted murder of Thembisile Nkambule?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: And finally you claim amnesty for a general instruction to set up self-defence units who were to illegally arm themselves and to protect themselves in the community from unlawful attacks and at all costs to achieve stability in the area, do you confirm that?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: Now in your Special Committee you - as we understand the evidence thusfar, Mr Mkhwanazi was to have Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya assassinated, was that the instruction given to Mr Mkhwanazi by your committee?

MR ZWANE: Could you please repeat the names? Yes, it was Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya.

MR PATEL: Did you know that Javi Mkhwanazi was to instruct Mr Gushu?

MR ZWANE: That is correct, I knew that.

MR PATEL: And did you know Mr Gushu at the time?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I knew him as a comrade or a fellow comrade. That is about all I know about him or I knew about him at that time.

MR PATEL: Did you know Chris Ngwenya?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did.

MR PATEL: And did you know Mr Jwi Zwane?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did.

MR PATEL: And did you know which political organisations they belonged to?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I knew they were IFP members which was working hand in hand with the Black Cats.

MR PATEL: Yes. Did you know if they held any positions in either the Black Cats or the IFP?

MR ZWANE: All I knew was that they were Inkatha members but with regard to the Black Cats they were the leaders of the group.

MR PATEL: As member of the ANC, how did you view people belonged to the IFP and/or the Black Cats?

MR ZWANE: I viewed them as our opposers as well as people who were against our policies and then with regard to the Black Cats, I think I regarded them as our adversaries as the ANC.

MR PATEL: And the situation in Westvilleton(?), Ermelo at the time, how did you view that situation?

MR ZWANE: I could say that there was violence, people were being killed and innocent people were becoming victims of murder.

MR PATEL: Who according to you and your knowledge was responsible for these acts of violence and murders?

MR ZWANE: It's the leaders of the Black Cats, that is Jwi Zwane as well as Chris Ngwenya.

MR PATEL: In issuing out these instructions as part of the Special Committee, did you act out of personal gain, did you act for personal gain or any malice?

MR ZWANE: No, that is not true. There was absolutely no personal gain or monies but we were protecting ourselves as well as the community within which we lived and the surrounding areas and members of the ANC.

MR PATEL: Could you tell the Committee what the situation was after the assassination of Mr Jwi Zwane insofar as violence is concerned?

MR ZWANE: After Jwi Zwane's death I think the violence became even worse and it was clear to us that the members of the Black Cats were now launching revenge attacks but after quite a few days the violence continued as before.

MR PATEL: In the Background Statement there is talk of mediation between the two factions that existed, did you represent your party, the ANC at these meetings?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I was part.

MR PATEL: And who according to your knowledge represented the Black Cats of the IFP member?

MR ZWANE: With regard to the negotiations with the IFP there would be Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya but there was an instance where some people from Ulundi came. I remember Mr Mhlango was present. I do not remember the rest but many a times when we negotiated with members of the IFP it would be Chris or Jwi.

MR PATEL: Mr Jwi Zwane, did you know him personally?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did know him personally.

MR PATEL: Do you know if he had a business?

MR ZWANE: I've never seen Jwi's business. I do not know of its existence.

MR PATEL: Were you prosecuted, have you been prosecuted for any of the offences for which you claim amnesty?

MR ZWANE: No, I haven't been prosecuted.

MR PATEL: Have you got any personal knowledge of any complicity by the South African Police, with regard to their assistance of the Black Cats?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do have plenty of information with regard to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you've been asked about personal knowledge.

MR ZWANE: Personal information.

MR PATEL: Do you have personal knowledge of South African Police complicity?

CHAIRPERSON: We don't know here what you heard, not yet anyway. Do you know of police complicity in Black Cats operations that you yourself saw?

MR ZWANE: Whatever I am going to relate is something that I experienced personally.

MR PATEL: Would you relate these experiences to the Committee?

MR ZWANE: During the 1990's as I've already pointed out there was a lot of violence in those areas. We were being attacked and I was also personally attacked, my house was attacked by members of the Black Cats but luckily I was able to escape and evade the attack.

The following day I got in touch with members of the ANC who were in higher positions. I went to Johannesburg as well as Nelspruit and when I came back from Nelspruit I went straight to Steve Ngwenya's office here in Ermelo.

I received a telephone call that Black Cats had arrived at my place and they were attacking my place. They also had some petrol bombs. I had left my kids but they were not specifically at my house but at the neighbour's place. Now I realised that they were going to attack them because they were just nearby and I decided to go and check as to whether my children were safe or not.

At Steve Ngwenya's office there was a certain man who had a car. I asked him to take me and accompany me to my place. We duly went into the residential area. Even before we got to my place we came across a number of policemen who were forming a blockade. They stopped our car and they arrested me there and then and I was taken.

Before I was taken, may I please just explain as to who arrested me? I was arrested by van Zwiel as well as Captain Botha. The other policemen were playing a passive role or standing guard for me not to be able to escape. I was taken into a private car. That is where van Zwiel uttered the statement that as long as he is still alive and around in Ermelo we were not going to be able to carry out Mandela's instructions because it was just after Mandela had been released. He said this is not Mandela's place and we were not going to do anything that Mandela wanted.

I was arrested and I was put in custody. It was a corrugated iron type of a building. There two policemen who were keeping guard over me. I knew the one policeman but the other one was unknown to me, Mr Dlamini who is now late.

I stayed with them from two up to six in the evening. When I was arrested I could see that some houses were being burnt and some were being attacked. As I was still inside the police cell the door was slightly ajar and I saw quite a number of guys or males who had an assortment of weapons and when I looked at them I could identify them as Black Cat members.

I asked Dlamini and told them that: "Here are the people who had come to attack me earlier on", and I wanted him to ensure me as to my safety because they had just come in at random and I felt scared, but Mr Dlamini said he could not ensure as to my safety. The only person who can tell me with regard to that is Captain Botha and Captain Botha was not present at that time.

They kept on pointing at me and making signs that that evening they were going to kill me, as I'm indicating. That shocked me, that kind of behaviour, that it could go on right inside the police cell. They were quite free within the place. They were busy asking for water, pacing up and down the place. They were quite used to the place. You could see that they were moving around freely.

I remained there until round about 10 in the evening and at that time Captain Botha arrived and called me to a place where I was supposed to submit a statement. That is where Captain Botha told me that he was releasing, I should go back home but because I knew that it wasn't safe to be released at that time of the night and I elected to remain in police custody. I even pointed out to him that he could provide me with the safety that I needed. He would release me that following day. I gave him the instruction to keep me but he actually refused.

He kept on telling me that I was the instigator of violence in the residential areas but I was scared of dying and he kept on pushing me to get out of the police station but there were two other white policemen who were inside there whose names I do not know. At that stage these policemen took out their name tags and they pushed me outside the police station and they shut the door after me.

In my mind it occurred that they probably had sent the Black Cats, they'd set them on me. I tried to run but I realised that I could not outrun them from the police station to my place. My best was to find a place to hide in the meantime. I hope you know where the police station is, it's close to the post office. There were still trees and shrubs at the post office and I went to hide myself in those shrubs.

Within a few minutes of my having done so I saw a group of about six or seven who were approaching from the police station. They had an assortment of weapons including pangas. Some of them went around the corner, that is towards the United Building and others went straight down the road. They were running.

I realised that if I remained there they might probably get me when they come back. I did have a suspicion that they were actually looking for me. After they had disappeared I went right into the centre of town and I ran towards the Boland Bank, trying to find a place of refuge. I got to the Holiday Inn and took the road that proceeds towards Ermelo next to Pine Spares Stores.

There was a shop called: "Into Africa" just a short distance from the Holiday Inn. I had a red jersey on and the area was well lit. When I approached Pine Spares they saw me, that's when they blew their whistles alerting each other to the fact that they had seen me or they were seeing me.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, the Interpreter did not hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you repeat your last answer please.

MR ZWANE: When I approached Pine Spares, they were next to a certain shop called: "Into Africa" and when I saw them they alerted each other by whistling that I was approaching. That is when I decided that I had to run for my life and I was able to outrun them because I was faster than them and I was able to get into the residential area before they could get me.

That incident actually indicated to me that there was complicity as far as police were concerned. The following day I realised that I was the only one who had not been attacked personally because quite a number of my colleagues had been attacked and injured and they were in hospitals.

I decided to run away that very same day and I went away for a period of about three months. After John had been, after John had gone out of the hospital I decided to go see him so that we could discuss this issue and report it to the ANC structures.

We proceeded - can I go on?

MR PATEL: I think that that would be sufficient for that particular purpose. Returning now to the offences concerned, could you just explain to the Committee what your motivation was behind committing the offences for which you claim amnesty?

MR ZWANE: What prompted me to take an active part is that we were not the only ones who got attacked. At a stage we discovered that a number of people, that is community members as well as innocent people were becoming attacked. Members of the ANC were being attacked, the ANC Youth League as well as the SACP and other members of the community who were innocent. I could say that is the basis for what I did.

MR PATEL: What did you intend to do about these attacks or the violence, what was your intention with regard thereto?

MR ZWANE: With regard to the attacks launched upon us, we decided that we would get together with our adversaries and discuss the issues so that these attacks on citizens or innocent citizens should stop and life should go on like before.

MR PATEL: Now we know that according to your evidence that the attempts at negotiations or mediations failed, what then became your purpose in committing the offences for which you claim amnesty? Let me put it to you this way, you've claimed amnesty for a number of murders and attempted murders, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR PATEL: And the setting up of self-defence units or an instruction to do so, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PATEL: Now these murders and the setting up of the self-defence units, what was the purpose behind them?

MR ZWANE: I think the main reason was for us to be able to protect ourselves after realising that there was absolutely no way that we could negotiate with our opponents and that the negotiations were not bringing any peace and tranquillity, and upon realising that the police were working hand in hand with the Black Cats, we realised that we had to find a way to protect ourselves and other members of the community.

MR PATEL: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I don't suppose you've got any questions have you?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: There's just one issue which, of information I'd like clarified. Perhaps this witness can, thank you.

Mr Zwane, whenever reference is made to the committee making a decision to get rid of, let's put it that way, or eliminate Mr Jwi Zwane, both Mr Mndebele and Mr Mkhwanazi make reference a funeral that was held and shots had been fired into a coffin, were you present at that funeral?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I was present.

MR BLACK: Is it possible for you to tell us exactly what happened with regard to the shooting and whether Mr Jwi Zwane or his brother played any role at that shooting?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I can briefly explain. When we went to the funeral we were small little groups. I was not in the group that was at the front and when the shooting started we got scattered but what I saw at a distance was Jwi Zwane standing in front of the coffin shooting into the coffin and by that time the coffin was on the ground.

MR BLACK: I have not further questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will be very brief.

This last incident which you've referred to where Mr Jwi Zwane fired shots into the coffin, did you witness this yourself?

MR ZWANE: I witnessed it personally.

MR KEMP: And approximately how many shots did he fire?

MR ZWANE: I will not be able to recall as to how many times he shot but I could see him shooting. I was at a distance and I could see him as I'm indicating, shooting into the coffin. As to how many times I have no clarity.

MR KEMP: Are you aware that these or this allegation of yours was one of the allegations that was thoroughly investigated by the Goldstone Commission?

MR ZWANE: I wouldn't know that.

MR KEMP: I put to you that the Goldstone Commission thoroughly investigated it and that investigation and the reports after that incident indicated that not one single shot had been fired into that coffin.

MR ZWANE: What I know is what happened, what the Goldstone Commission found out is its own findings.

MR KEMP: It is apparent Sir, that you are imagining a lot of stuff.

MR PATEL: Objection Mr Chairman, on what is that based, this imagination?

MR KEMP: Do you want me to clarify that Mr Commissioner?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR KEMP: Well, there was proper evidence let by numerous witnesses at the Goldstone Commission that at that particular incident there was no damage to the corpse or to the coffin after that incident, so if shots were fired they must have been blanks or imagined.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any comment?

MR ZWANE: If that is Goldstone's findings, I have no knowledge thereof but I'm telling you about what I saw and I stand by what I saw.

MR KEMP: If called to reply to any of the allegations that you made, the particular members of the South African Police whom you referred to will deny that they in any way helped or assisted the Black Cats as indicated by you or that any attempt was made on your life with the assistance of any member of the former South African Police.

MR ZWANE: I will not deny that. It is very clear that nobody would plead guilty to anything. We would all like to plead not guilty and absolve ourselves of any crimes that we have committed, that is what is happening with those police. But they chased me out of the police station and thereafter the Black Cats came out of the very same police station, so you can make your own conclusions. They knew that what they were not doing was not lawful, that is why they would deny it.

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, I do not intend to pursue this any further, I don't think it goes to the merits of these applications. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be long?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, but it's always a difficult question to answer Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you plan on taking some time?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I have a problem with your application for amnesty, the one where you have to comply, where you have to receive amnesty from this Committee and that is the official form, page 90. Could you page there? This application form, did you fill it in yourself? It would seem as if you were assisted by an attorney, Mr Radebe, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I was assisted by my attorney.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, you have to comply with the requirements to hand in a proper application. Did you tell the attorney all the facts, did you give him all the facts when you filled in this form? This would be the 1st of May 1997.

MR ZWANE: What is your question?

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you give him all the facts as you have testified here today, as to the incidents for which you apply for amnesty? As you have testified today, all the particulars, did you tell the attorney?

MR ZWANE: I gave my attorney all that was needed in order to complete the form fully and I told myself that whatever additional information I would give when I render my evidence.

MS VAN DER WALT: So according to this form that was sent to the Amnesty Committee, on page 93 you say that you acted in accordance with instruction, that is question 11(a) and you give all the particulars:

Do you see that?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Are those the particulars you gave to your attorney?

MR ZWANE: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing else?

MR ZWANE: With regard to what?

MS VAN DER WALT: Your amnesty application, the incidents for which you apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your attorney the whole story?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Especially insofar as your participation in the whole affair?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that does not appear in your application, that is my problem.

MR ZWANE: What is it that is not contained in my amnesty application, what is it exactly?

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing that you said today.

MR PATEL: With respect Mr Chairman, my learned friend must be more specific with regard to what is not contained in his form as apposed to his evidence today, more particularly when you look at the form it refers to the Background Statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: We'll get to that.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: It says here only if the Honourable Committee received this application form because it is clear, and I do not want to pre-empt my cross-examination but what is meant here, what is said here in paragraph (b) says:

The documents before this Committee, from that it would seem that the Background Statement did not come with this form, so if this had to be heard in chambers then nothing would have been said because the Background Statement is not annexed to this application form and that is what I wish to ask him because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Madam, you are well aware that if that document was not attached then the Investigative Teams would have asked the attorney where the statement was which he referred to.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct. I will go further Sir.

I wish to put it to you, you mention here, and that is my problem, because with other applications where there was just a word wrong the poor applicant had a hard time. Now I wish to take you to this Background Statement. According to Volume 1, page 9, and in your testimony when it was lead by your legal representative you confirmed that this was the Background Statement, is that correct?

MR PATEL: That is not correct Mr Chairman. The Background Statement which I put to the witness in his testimony with regard, which covers from page 9 onwards, was put to him on the basis that: "This was what was read to Mr Mndebele, do confirm the correctness thereof insofar as it relates to you"? It's common cause that the Background Statement which accompanied the application form is the one which commences on page 5 of Volume 1.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, can you page to page 5 please? Do you know that statement?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who compiled it?

MR ZWANE: It was members of the committee including myself assisted by my attorney.

MS VAN DER WALT: This statement that continues up to page 8, is that the statement? Did you sign it at any stage?

MR ZWANE: Where is the signature that you are referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I'm asking you, did you sign this?

MR ZWANE: I do believe that the documents that were signed were signed on the day that there was a dispute with regard to signatures. We did not sign at that particular time but we signed at a later stage but we did not read the documents.

MS VAN DER WALT: Either I'm making a big mistake, and the Chairperson would put me right, this is the first time since your evidence was led that there is reference made to this statement, that is from page 5 onwards.

MR PATEL: What is the purpose of the question, what is the relevance that it's not been referred to?

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't part of his evidence in chief.

MR PATEL: I never led him on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the question begs the conclusion that it was never part of his evidence in chief.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, if one looks at your application form and you refer to:

Do you refer to this statement that is contained in pages 5 to 8?

MR ZWANE: Is that a question?

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I will put it to you again. I do not know if you can hear the interpretation very well. I would like to ask you again, if you look at your application on page 92 and 93, question number 9 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Madam, before we continue, there are certain applicants who went to a certain attorney and said they would like to apply for amnesty and it seems to me as if there are two Background Statements that were compiled by the attorney and submitted as a broad background of what happened, the one more than the other it seems to me.

In all these applications which this attorney dealt with it seems as if they refer to one or both of these statements. Do you agree with me that it seems like that? When I read these pieces I experienced exactly that same problem because I did not know what statement they are referring to.

It seems to me as if you've got the same problem but I do not know if we can blame the applicant for that. We can however ask him whether he doesn't know, if he can maybe explain it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, it is correct. I got the impression when I went through the documents, that this statement which is referred to now is a summary by someone and we do not know who. No references are made to Annexure A or B in the statement. The evidence of this applicant was led by an experienced legal person and when he was questioned on this it was confirmed, the evidence, Mr Mndebele's testimony but it when it was led by his applicant it was confirmed ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let us assume or accept that it is not before this Committee, what regard to his application, whereto then? What is then the point?

MS VAN DER WALT: That the statement on page 5 is not part of his application, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: Oh, because you see, if that statement is part of his application then I would like to cross-examine him on that because now, and I know we are going to adjourn and he will get the opportunity to go through it because it does differ from the testimony that he just gave, and that is why I wanted to give him the opportunity to tell me that that statement is part of his application, because his legal representative did not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not be fair if we adjourn now, ask him to read through it and then we ask him tomorrow morning: "Does that form part of your application or not"?

MS VAN DER WALT: That would be fair but I do not think that the cross-examination would add onto anything. It is a very long statement and a lot of detail is given.

CHAIRPERSON: It's just to be fair, he does not know what it says.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him say if it is part of his application or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: I agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we begin at a quarter to nine tomorrow morning? Does anyone have a problem with that? Very well, we then adjourn until a quarter to nine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, in so far as it is necessary, would you undertake to report back to Mr Black any controversial issues?

MR PATEL: I will do so Mr Chairman.

NICHOLAS ZWANE: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: (continued) Mr Zwane, did you have the opportunity to look at this document from page 5 in Volume 1?

MR ZWANE: (No translation)

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee what document this is?

MR ZWANE: I was supposed to go and read the background from page 5.

MS VAN DER WALT: Have you seen this document before?

MR ZWANE: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: When?

MR ZWANE: It was at the time when we were consulting with our legal representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zwane, does this document form part of your application?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other statement on page 9?

MR ZWANE: Let me start with page 5.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I am just wanting to clear up something first. The document from page 5 to 9, you say you wish to have that incorporated in your application, correct?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a document starting on page 9 and it ends on I think page 14, am I correct? That is a document that is headed Brief Historical Background, that is another document. Do you wish that document also to be incorporated in your application in so far as it effects you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, this is the same part.

CHAIRPERSON: And the first document starting on page 5, do you wish to incorporate that into your application in so far as it effects you?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir you say that this document was drawn up when you consulted with your legal representative, and then do you confirm the document, everything as it is here, you worked through it last night?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did read it last night.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well sir, why in your application for amnesty that starts on page 90, why did you then, why do you apply for amnesty for happenings that occurred in Ermelo only? If you look at page 93, paragraph 11(a)?

MR ZWANE: I can see that. Would you please repeat the question.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you apply for amnesty only for occurrences in Ermelo?

MR ZWANE: I would like to explain it as follows, that what appear on page 5 right up to page 9, is what we were discussing as a Committee with the lawyers. In so far as page 93 is concerned, is that I am reporting or stating things that happened within my knowledge here at Ermelo.

MS VAN DER WALT: What instructions did you give in terms of Piet Retief?

MR ZWANE: There is no instruction that I issued in so far as that is concerned.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Mkhwanazi also testified the same, the previous applicant, that he gave no direct instruction to Gushu in Piet Retief. Did you hear that?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I did hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you mean that he gave no direct instruction with regard to Piet Retief?

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you understand my question? You as a member of the Committee, did you give any instructions with regard to Piet Retief?

MR ZWANE: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever find out that he had ever done anything in Piet Retief that amounted to a crime?

MR ZWANE: As I have explained that I was concerned about what was happening here at Ermelo and Mkhwanazi was the one who was in charge of things happening in other areas.

We were only reported on what was happening here at Ermelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find out after the event, that Gushu had done something in Piet Retief?

MR ZWANE: I didn't attempt to get that information.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have any knowledge of what happened in Piet Retief?

MR ZWANE: No, I didn't have knowledge. I just knew that there was violence at Piet Retief as well, but I had no idea as to who was in charge of the comrades there. I didn't have all the necessary details.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you then say on page 7, at the top of the page, the assassination of Alfius Msibi was planned in such a way that it appeared at the time to be a robbery, rather than politically motivated?

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if we can't find out now if this is one of the incidents regarding him. If you will remember that he said it was part of his application in so far as it regards him.

It is not clear from this if this is one of the incidents which he binds himself to.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, that is my problem with this application. That is my problem with this document.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand your problem, but it is so and it is going to take some time, but then we have to find out.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you see that aspect concerning Mr Alfius Msibi on page 7?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it this way. You have heard certain testimony tendered thus far in this hearing, regarding an incident related to Mr Msibi in Piet Retief, correct?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that one of the incidents for which you think you are responsible?

MR ZWANE: No, that is not so.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you there when this document was drawn up?

MR ZWANE: Everybody who was effected by the violence, submitted their own points and expressions and the lawyers were the ones who compiled the information.

Part of the information here is my own personal expression and not everything here.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you not present when Mr Mkhwanazi gave the information to the Attorney?

MR ZWANE: Which Attorney are you talking about?

MS VAN DER WALT: The one who drew up this document?

MR ZWANE: It is as I have stated, that this doesn't mean that we were all together at the time when this document was being drafted. Instead people sent their submissions to the lawyer at different times.

I can say that I was not present when the document itself was being drafted or compiled.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, who was the Chairman of this Special Committee?

MR ZWANE: The Committee was such that there was no Chairperson. It was just a Committee for us to get together around a table and discuss issues.

MR HATTINGH: When you testified that you were the Deputy Chairperson, to which Committee did you then refer?

MR ZWANE: I was Deputy Chairperson in the Civic Organisation.

MR HATTINGH: On page 6 of the Volume, the paragraph in the middle of the page which reads, all decisions to eliminate members of the Black Cats were taken in this Committee.

Was that something with which you associated yourself with and in which you also took part?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct. I supported this at the time and I still concur with the information as it appears in the document.

MR HATTINGH: Without referring to all the paragraphs, is it correct then to say that the only decisions to eliminate people pertained to Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya and no one else?

MR ZWANE: Would you please repeat the question.

MR HATTINGH: The decisions taken at this Special Committee for the elimination of a person, pertained only to Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane and no other person?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct but the decision that was made was that we at Wesselton had a problem or Ermelo as a whole, we wanted stability.

The person who had to carry out this duty was supposed to ensure that we have stability at the end. But then we would not go around killing everybody. It became clear that the people who were problematic were amongst others Jwi Zwane, first of all and after Jwi Zwane, the problem continued and we also discussed Chris, because we realised that he too was equally problematic.

That is how he got eliminated.

MR HATTINGH: To clarify this issue, were there any other name or person on a list of people to be assassinated regarding which a decision was made by your Special Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what the Advocate is asking, was there any specific decision in regard to any specific person other than the two already mentioned?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I agree with that. We as a Committee, decided that if there is no stability people should continue working as expected, but ensure that no innocent people got hurt.

But we never mentioned specifically any name, we just said they should continue ensuring that there is stability in the community.

MR HATTINGH: Just to clarify this, you did specifically mention the names of Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane, but apart from those two names, no other names were mentioned, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Apart from these specific instructions from your Committee for the assassination of people, was there another instruction to any of the operatives to proceed and to commit assassinations where necessary?

MR ZWANE: We had delegated Mr Mkhwanazi to ensure that stability is maintained. I trust that he too passed the message on to his foot soldiers.

What I would like to clarify here however, is that the violence never subsided after the death of the two, but then it was no longer clear as to who was taking the lead now in perpetrating this violence.

It became clear that Jabu Mkhwanazi should talk to the people with whom he was working, and indicate to them that the violence should be brought to an end. This is one other decision that we took.

CHAIRPERSON: That instructions to maintain or achieve stability, would that include killing other people?

MR ZWANE: If it was necessary yes, I would say that is so because we were trying to identify the perpetrator and if the person was perpetrating the violence such that we would not bring him to discussions, there was no alternatives, but to eliminate such a person.

MR HATTINGH: Would it be correct to say that yourself, John Mndebele and Silos Nkonyane are old residents from this area and that Mkhwanazi was someone new to the area?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So if anyone would know who the leaders were at the time who were causing all the violence and conflict, it would be you who had been living in this area and not someone new?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now, apart from or let me just ask this first, did you know Chris Ngwenya?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I knew him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Jwi Zwane?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I knew him as well.

MR HATTINGH: Is it from your own personal knowledge that you say that they were the trouble makers at the time?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now, were there any other particular person who remained a trouble maker after Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane had been assassinated?

MR ZWANE: I wouldn't say specifically there was one particular person who was problematic, but I can say that the violence continued.

We were no longer in the position to identify the one person who was perpetrating this violence.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know a person called Gozo?

MR ZWANE: No, I don't know a person called Gozo?

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Bongani Malinga?

MR ZWANE: No, I don't know him as well.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Obed Nhlabathi?

MR ZWANE: Let me put it this way, these boys who were here involved in the violence, were very young boys, far much younger than I am.

I therefore don't know many of them. I only knew people my age like Jwi and Chris Ngwenya, those are the people that I knew very well. One other person that I knew after some time, was the one boy called Baba. I don't know the others.

I started to know the other one very recently, the one person who came and started making noise here at the hall. I didn't know all these younger boys.

MR HATTINGH: Can we just get confirmation with regard to the last mentioned name, Obed Nhlabathi, you did not know the person at the time, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: No, I didn't know him. He died without me knowing him.

MR HATTINGH: And your Committee did not discuss the elimination of any of the three mentioned people at any stage, even though you may not have known them personally?

MR ZWANE: As I have said that after instructing the SDU's about the elimination of Jwi, no other name was raised, except to say that violence should be brought to an end and stabilise the area.

CHAIRPERSON: If Gushu had to come tell us that that is so, he did receive instructions in respect of those two particular people, but he committed other murders in pursuance of your other instruction to maintain stability in the area, would you accept that that would fall under the third instruction?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I would accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that you only knew of Obed Nhlabathi, you only knew of him after his death, did I understand you correctly?

MR ZWANE: No. I didn't know him after his death. I said I didn't know him when he died.

CHAIRPERSON: You only got to know of him after his death?

MR ZWANE: I didn't know him at all. What I knew is that he died. I have not seen or met him personally. I may have met him, without knowing it was him.

CHAIRPERSON: But today you know of him?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I know about his history today.

CHAIRPERSON: Would his death, would you regard his death as having been caused in terms of that third instruction?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I would say so.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, when did you hear the details and the reasons about the assassination of Obed Nhlabathi?

MR ZWANE: I didn't get information about the instruction to kill him per se. I only got information that he had died. He was in hospital apparently at the time and there was fear that Black Cats might attack some of our people who were in hospital and the only way to ensure the safety of those people, was to eliminate Obed.

I received the news and accepted it.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, I would prefer if you would answer the question and not give us the full story and background. When did you hear about the incident of the killing of Obed Nhlabathi, just when, that is all that I want to know.

MR ZWANE: I never heard about this death. I only heard that he had already died, I don't know anything about the plans.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you hear that?

MR ZWANE: I think I heard about it the following day, even though I am not sure of the dates.

CHAIRPERSON: Will we be correct to say more or less a day or two after the death?

MR ZWANE: As I have indicated, I am not quite sure how many days thereafter it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I think that is the closest we are going to get to it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appreciate that. Who reported back to you about this incident?

MR ZWANE: (Indistinct) Nkosi told me about this.

MR HATTINGH: Is this person that you have just mentioned, is he also an applicant at this hearing?

MR ZWANE: No. The person is not an applicant here and I think the person is also not involved, but that is the person from whom I got the information, who were in the same organisation.

MR HATTINGH: I would like to refer you to page 7 of the bundle of documents, about one third from the bottom under the heading Robberies.

When you annexed this background statement to your application, what was meant by this paragraph a number of robberies were committed? What was the purpose of enclosing that information? Do you take responsibility for the robberies?

MR ZWANE: No. I am not responsible because I don't know about it. The people who knew about it, included it here. I did indicate earlier on that people make their written submissions to the legal representative and I therefore think that this might have been somebody else's submission.

MR HATTINGH: Did you or your Committee give instructions for robberies to be committed, armed robberies?

CHAIRPERSON: Specifically.

MR ZWANE: Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or your Committee give specific instructions that robberies could or must be committed?

MR ZWANE: We did not say that robberies should be committed, but what we said was that everything possible should be done so that the violence should come to an end.

The people therefore had to make use of their own discretion as to the acquisition of arms and ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: In exercising that discretion, if they committed further crimes, would you say that would be in line with that third instruction?

MR ZWANE: When they are doing what? Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: If in maintaining this or achieving this stability, further crimes had to be committed, and these crimes were committed in the exercise of the discretion given to an operative, would you say that would fall in line with the instruction, the third instruction given by the Committee?

MR ZWANE: I can agree with that, that yes, it is in line with it because we never gave them specific instructions as to what to do. We just instructed them that we would be pleased if there was stability at Ermelo.

I also think that if I were to explain further, we also indicated that we accepted their manner of operation, accept it and pleased about it, knowing that they were attempting to bring about stability. At the same time being aware that some people might get injured.

We knew that many other people might get injured in the process and that was how it really, exactly happened.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Zwane, did you foresee that robberies could be committed, did you have robberies and other killings in mind when you spoke about this wide instruction?

MR ZWANE: Yes, we didn't have money, we did think that they might do things that were not acceptable in the community, but then there was nothing we could do at the time because we had nothing to give them to ensure that stability is brought back and maintained.

ADV SANDI: Mr Zwane, I think I have heard you saying for more than two times, everything possible had to be done. What did your Committee have in mind by saying everything possible?

MR ZWANE: We were thinking that there might be a way and means of acquiring firearms so that they could protect the community and what was uppermost in our minds, was that if there were people who had guns, they would get those guns and protect themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: By fair or foul means?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct because it was a war situation. There really was no sympathy, we had our sympathy with the people who were being attacked.

There were only a few people going around carrying guns and those are basically the guns we were referring to. It didn't matter with us as to how they managed to get hold of the guns. If they managed to get hold of the guns with a smile from the owners, that was okay, but if not, still acceptable.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, will it be correct to say that at some stage you and or your Committee became aware of the fact that armed robberies were being committed with the view of financing and arming the SDU's?

MR ZWANE: Yes, we did hear about that.

MR HATTINGH: Was it reported to you by any of the operatives?

MR ZWANE: It was not reported by the operatives, we were not communicating really with the operatives. We only communicated with Mr Mkhwanazi. He is the one who was reporting on all developments, and we would make the necessary approval.

MR HATTINGH: Who reported back to the Committee about the armed robberies that had been committed? If you could just give us the name?

MR ZWANE: Jabu Mkhwanazi.

MR HATTINGH: How many armed robberies did he report to your Committee?

MR ZWANE: He reported on two armed robberies. He reported on the first armed robbery and after some months, he came back to us to report on another robbery.

MR HATTINGH: About which two armed robberies did he report to you, if you could just identify them?

MR ZWANE: The one that happened at Piet Retief, that is the robbery that took place there, and the other one that happened at Secunda. I don't know exactly where but I am told there is a mine or a firm, that is where it took place.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the incident where Mr De Bruyn got killed? Would that assist you, (indistinct) compound incident?

MR ZWANE: I would not be in the position to explain really, but I know that a white person died at Secunda and another one got injured. If that is the one that you are talking about, I think, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did your Committee then approve of the fact that those robberies had been committed?

MR ZWANE: Yes, we accepted it because there was no alternative.

MR HATTINGH: When you discussed the situation with the late Mr Chris Hani during July 1990, did you discuss with him the possibility of armed robberies to be committed?

MR ZWANE: No. We did not discuss that.

MR HATTINGH: Did he give any indication in that regard, that it was to be allowed?

MR ZWANE: No, he did not.

MR HATTINGH: You - I just want to find the paragraph - you and your Committee acted under the instructions of the ANC command, when you did what you did in this area, is that correct?

MR ZWANE: I would say yes that is the case, even though there were some instances where we had to make decisions ourselves such as instructing them that they should do everything in their power, in their means to bring about peace and stability. We didn't get that from the ANC, we made that decision ourselves.

MR HATTINGH: If you could just clarify or tell us more about the command structure that you fell under, who they were and what instructions you in fact got from them and at what time?

MR ZWANE: There was no structure under which we operated except to say we liaised with Chris Hani. We went to him for the first time asking him to assist us procure firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly that this Committee whatever form it was made up, was an authority onto itself here in the area of Ermelo, Piet Retief etc?

MR ZWANE: No. The Committee was based here at Ermelo, concentrating on what was happening here.

CHAIRPERSON: And it saw itself being entitled to issue orders or not?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct because of the circumstances here at Ermelo at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Explain to me then, if that is so, what was the connection between the Committee and Chris Hani then? Chris Hani being on the (indistinct) of national authority.

MR ZWANE: Yes, there was connection. That is after we went to him, deliberated with him and he indicated to us that we should go back home and do all in our power to see how we defended ourselves and maintained stability.

That is when it became necessary that we set up a Self Defence Unit for this purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't have authority over that Committee?

MR ZWANE: He did have authority. What I was just trying to explain here is that things such as doing whatever in our power, that was something that we decided ourselves, because we had nothing with which to protect ourselves.

The SDU's therefore had it incumbent upon themselves to do everything within their means to defend the community. I am saying here that this is not necessarily something that came from Chris Hani, but the person in charge here was the one who had to make that decision.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, one moment. Mr Zwane, did I hear you correctly, did you say that you also went to Mr Hani to ask him to give you, to help you with arms, is that right, did I hear you correctly?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct. Initially we didn't have knowledge, I think it was about 1990 shortly after the unbanning of the ANC, we thought that when we went to ANC, should I say Chris Hani himself being a soldier, he might be in the position to help us with firearms, and he then explained to us that they didn't have arms.

Instead we should come up with our own means to protect ourselves. I don't know whether that answer is satisfactory.

ADV BOSMAN: No, that is what I wanted to clarify, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Chris Hani imply that you were allowed to commit armed robberies to obtain arms, or did you understand him to imply that?

MR ZWANE: As I have explained, he never gave us that authority and we never, ever assumed that he was saying that. But because we were frustrated here, that is why we made these decisions.

He said we should form the Self Defence Units and protect the people, and we decided that we should do everything at our disposal to protect the people.

MR HATTINGH: Would you please turn to page 13 of the Bundle, the first paragraph on page 5 of your statement, paragraph 15 on page 13 of the Bundle. The third line it is said that and to put into practice the orders received from the ANC command.

To what orders are you referring to in this sentence?

MR ZWANE: Here we are talking about the setting up of the Self Defence Units.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any further orders from the ANC command apart from that very first instruction from Chris Hani in July 1990?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, if he did other than what he has already said, what relevance would that be of?

We are busy with certain applications for amnesty in respect of certain issues. He said that the orders he received was to ensure that Self Defence Units were set up. He has already said and this could be the only relevance, that the decisions as to how to maintain and arm these Self Defence Units, was a decision made locally.

That is quite relevant to the applications. If he received any other orders, of what relevance would that other orders be to this application?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would then not ask this question. I will accept that. To conclude this issue, could you just tell the Committee, did you after the initial instruction from Chris Hani of July 1990, did you report back to Chris Hani or any other command structure in the ANC about what you did during this period 1990 to 1992?

MR ZWANE: Reporting on what?

MR HATTINGH: You had received instructions or orders from ANC command.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words Chris Hani told you to ensure that Self Defence Units were to be set up. The question is did you go back to anybody and specifically perhaps to Chris Hani himself, to give a progress report on how you are going about setting up or complying with these orders? Is that the question Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR ZWANE: To answer that question, I would say after having met Chris Hani we came back and set up the Self Defence Units. After which we started liaising with J.J. Mabena, we no longer went back to Chris Hani.

But instead we reported whatever was happening to J.J. Mabena because he was at the upper rank.

MR HATTINGH: And what was J.J. Mabena's position at that time?

MR ZWANE: He was Chairman of the ANC in the area, also leading COSATU in the region.

ADV SANDI: Mr Zwane, when you left Mr Hani that is after the meeting that you had with him, was it part of the understanding between yourself and him that you were going to come back to him, that is Mr Hani, to give a report back as to the progress?

MR ZWANE: I don't quite understand the question, would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he under the impression that you were going to come back to him to give a progress report, that is Chris Hani himself?

MR ZWANE: No, he didn't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it then, do I understand you correctly then that this whole process was in the hands of the Committee now, they would make decisions and expect the operatives to follow it?

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Mr Gushu at the time, 1990 to 1992, did you meet him, did you know him?

MR ZWANE: Mr Gushu came here and became one of the comrades, that is how I knew him.

MR HATTINGH: Did he attend your Special Committee meetings?

MR ZWANE: No, he never attended such meetings.

MR HATTINGH: Just to put matters into perspective, when did Mr Mkhwanazi come onto the scene in these events, approximately when? There were certain developments with regard to the Black Cats and when they were sort of ousted and there were those public meetings to oust them and then the Special Committee formed. When did Mr Mkhwanazi come onto the scene?

MR ZWANE: When Mr Mkhwanazi arrived here, the Special Committee was already in place. I think it was round about 1991. I am not quite sure of the dates, and he arrived here around 1991. That is if I still remember very well.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to the instructions from your Special Committee for the assassination of Chris Ngwenya and Jwi Zwane, it would appear from the documentation that the instructions or the decision was made by your Committee and the person was then killed only some extensive time thereafter, at least a month or two months thereafter.

Why this delay while the people were known in this area, you knew where they were living? Why not were they immediately executed?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, can this witness answer that, and didn't we get an explanation whether we accept it or not is another matter, from the person who committed the crime?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, my submission would be that this Committee had a very real interest in having their orders executed, and if there was such an inordinate delay, perhaps the witness can assist us by telling ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... they made enquiries and said well, maybe ...

MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, could you just assist the Committee. Your Special Committee made decisions for the assassination of two people, Jwi Zwane and Chris Ngwenya, but it would appear that there were in both instances, an extensive delay in the execution of your orders. Did you make enquiries about the delay?

I mean at the time there was a tremendous fighting and conflict, your orders were not executed immediately. Did you make enquiries?

MR ZWANE: No, we did not because we had not discussed the time factor. We didn't say to them that they should kill him before the end of the week or the end of the month.

We just indicated to them that such and such a person is problematic and therefore must be eliminated. It was up to them how long it took them to carry out the instruction.

MR HATTINGH: Okay, then the second last issue I would like to deal with is the annexures to the second statement, that is Annexure A and A1 which you will find on pages 15 to 19.

Did you assist in the compilation of this Annexure A and A1?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Would it be correct to say that you do not know the details of any other incidents which you can now remember and which you can add to this list?

MR ZWANE: No, I cannot add, not now. Maybe if I was given time to go back and read through this again, maybe I will be in a position to remember other things.

MR HATTINGH: But at the time that this list was compiled and where you assisted, even at that time you could not remember any further incidents?

MR ZWANE: Yes, there are some other things that I could not remember, but I think I can be of help here, such as saying for example yesterday, we also remembered that there is one incident that was not included here, the death or the killing of Themba. I have just forgotten his surname, and he used to be called Abe as well. He died and on looking at this, I realised that his name does not appear here.

The arrival of Inkatha, driving in a bus where a number of people were killed, these are some of the things. There are many other incidents that were not included here, not because we didn't want to but because we couldn't remember them at the time.

MR HATTINGH: The incident where you allege Zwane fired several shots at the coffin and or the body of the person at a particular funeral, will it be correct to say that that incident sort of sparked off the decision that Jwi Zwane was to be assassinated?

MR ZWANE: That is not correct. That is not the one incident that sparked off or inspired the decision for his assassination.

MR HATTINGH: Lastly I would like to put to you per instructions of the families and the next of kin of victims, that Jwi Zwane did not take part and he was not the person causing all the trouble in this area, and that there was no need for him to be assassinated.

MR ZWANE: I don't know whether you are asking me or just stating?

MR HATTINGH: I am stating.

CHAIRPERSON: He is stating it and we are inviting a comment if you want to.

MR ZWANE: What you are saying is not correct. As far as I know, Jwi Zwane was the one who was in the middle of this conflict. For example before his death, there were people, many of them, who were found dead and mutilated.

Their body parts were missing and later on we discovered that Jwi Zwane was the leader of the Black Cats. I am also of the opinion that those who are going to testify after me, will bear me out on this one. After his death, as an indication that he was leader of the boys, the boys got angry and the violence escalated.

Thereafter the leadership position was taken over by Chris Ngwenya. After the death of Chris Ngwenya the same patter followed, violence exacerbated and subsided thereafter. After their deaths, violence did not die completely. Violence continued, albeit on a lower scale until this whole thing came to an end around 1994.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Zwane, I would further like to put it to you on instructions, that the brother of Jwi Zwane, Elias Zwane had a business which was in competition with Mr John Mndebele, that Jwi Zwane was working with his brother in his brother's business, and that that was the reason why Jwi Zwane was eliminated, because of a personal thing between Mr John Mndebele and the Zwane family? Would you care to comment?

MR ZWANE: Let me start by saying that I do not agree with your allegation that there was bad blood between the Zwane's and the Mndebele's. I am also a Zwane.

What I can say here is that Jwi Zwane never had a business, I heard yesterday that he once owned a business. He actually never owned a business.

It was also indicated here that he worked for his brother. I cannot deny that, but at the time of the violence, he was not working for his brother. I also explained here before this Committee yesterday, that I met Jwi Zwane at the Police station where he used to spend most of his time.

There was also a time when the Black Cats left the township and they came to stay in town.

MR HATTINGH: Okay, I would further wish to put it to you that Chris Ngwenya, there was no reason for him to be assassinated, apart from the fact that there was also a personal problem between Chris Ngwenya and Mr John Mndebele which came to a head on that Saturday, the day before Chris was killed, when John Mndebele laid a charge with the Police against Mr Chris Ngwenya?

MR ZWANE: I know not of any information about a charge being laid by Mr Mndebele against Chris.

What we did was to come together and tried to identify any remaining problem and make the necessary decision. I therefore cannot comment on what John Mndebele did in so far as the laying of the charge is concerned. He never told us anything to that effect.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir, no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, have you got any re-examination? None?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Zwane, you mentioned that you are also a Zwane. Were you related to Jwi Zwane in any manner?

MR ZWANE: No, we are not related, we just have the same surnames. In our culture it turns, we do refer to each other as relatives, but not in the true sense of the word.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Mr Zwane, before all this problems started, what did you know to have been the occupation of Jwi Zwane?

MR ZWANE: I have never known him to work. I have known him to be working at any stage whatsoever.

Ever since I knew him, he was not working.

ADV SANDI: And what was the occupation of Chris Ngwenya in your knowledge before the problems started?

MR ZWANE: Chris Ngwenya was a student at that time, but when the violence started, he got involved in the violence and stopped schooling so he was not employed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zwane, while you may not have been a relative of the deceased Jwi Zwane, did you belong to the same clan?

MR ZWANE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You in that context, you say that you never knew Jwi Zwane to be employed or operating a business of any sort.

MR ZWANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You say also that you did not know whether his brother Elias had a business?

MR ZWANE: Elias Zwane does have a business, it was only Jwi who did not have a business.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Now would you know because of your clan connections, whether Jwi would be working for his brother or not?

How can you say he didn't?

MR ZWANE: You would get Jwi at any place, even before the violence, he would come and visit me and at no stage did he mention that he was working.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, but at the time of his death, is it not possible that he was working for his brother?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, with respect, the applicant said the following about the employment. As Mr Chairman correctly points out, he talks about the clan connection, he says he heard this yesterday.

He said that it was also alleged and indicated that he was working for his brother and then he said, I cannot dispute that, so in so far as the working for his brother is concerned, his evidence has been that he cannot dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is possible that he did work for his brother at the time?

MR ZWANE: I wouldn't say whether he was working for his brother or not, but as a relative I would talk with him from time to time, but at no stage did he ever mention that he was going to work, so I cannot deny nor admit that he was working for his brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, you know the strife this country had to put up with, even till today, is unacceptable. There seems to be some forces in this country that are bent on retaining that set of circumstances. It is further heartbreaking to note that even families and clans are broken up by this.

That in itself is unacceptable. Is there no way that the traditions of clans and families can be restored in this area?

MR ZWANE: I don't think I understand you. Could you just rephrase your question and be a bit brief?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is there no way people can come together and live the way they should, in this area? This community in particular the black community, has been torn apart, tragically I think.

MR ZWANE: I don't think there is a way forward for us through negotiations, not unless the very same elements who were involved in tearing apart the fabric of the society, still gets involved in continuing to do the very same thing.

I think we will be able to sit down and negotiate, especially after these hearings. I think I would be able to explain to members of the community as to why I did those things and how I did them and ask for their forgiveness so that I could go back into the community that I originated from, so that they could also forgive me for my deeds because the decisions that I took were very difficult decisions, but under the circumstances, I had no other option but to act in the manner that I did.

We have lost Jwi whom I regard as my brother. I can just point out that that was a painful decision for me to take, it doesn't bring me joy in any way, even today as an individual and I don't think the community is impressed with all that has happened.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it is all very well to say we need to negotiate. Maybe negotiations is a stepping stone, starting point but families, clans, communities are not based on agreements that are negotiated.

All these years in our country, the existence of communities are based on respect for human integrity. Do you see any chance of reaching that stage, maybe initially by negotiations, but proceeding beyond that?

We can't be living with each other based on an agreement, it doesn't work like that.

MR ZWANE: The life that we lived before is divided into two. We lived peacefully before and thereafter there was violence.

Now I would be very grateful if the Commission or the Committee would assist the community in trying to re-establish the ties that we once had as members of the clan, as well as members of the community who are now victims and families of victims.

I think we can re-establish the ties. I do hope that everybody now realises that there is nothing that we achieved from fighting and from the violence, that took place. We cannot continue fighting in the manner that we did before and I believe that that is going to start with us as individual members of the community, victims in different ways, to start talking and start committing ourselves to peace.

It is only then that we can achieve peace. I think that the idea I have with regard to peace, because even if the violence would start once more, those who decide to fight, will fight, but at the end of the day we are left holding the shorter end of the stick, because we end up being victims or we end up being a society of victims and we end up having a generation of victims.

It becomes a very vicious cycle, so I think we do need help as individuals, as a society, as a group, we do need help or some intervention from outer forces in order to assist us to achieve this.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say you are happy, you really want to go through that process?

MR ZWANE: Yes, I think I am very committed to the process of reconciliation, because that was the idea in the very first place, to negotiate and achieve peace without having to use arms to fight, but our efforts proved futile, but I think now we have experienced a lot of pain and we do not want to go back to that situation that we experienced before.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused.

MR ZWANE: I would like to take this opportunity and address the victims and the families of the victims.

On my part, I do regret ...

CHAIRPERSON: Will you speak loud enough for them to hear.

MR ZWANE: To the families of the victims, I would like to say that I am deeply sorry for the part that I played in killing people. That was not our intention that people should die, but it was to maintain peace and stability in Ermelo.

I am very much aware of the consequences of our actions. I do ask for their forgiveness from the depth of my heart. But what I would like to point out is that today there is relative calm and peace in Ermelo and I hope that the people do appreciate the peace and calm that we have, even though we are from a past of violence.

I request that as from today, we will look at each other as elements of human nature, and we should respect the sanctity of life and bring peace in our own community. I thank you very much.