DATE: 05-08-1999




DAY: 4


CHAIRPERSON: We are now hearing the application of Sibosiso Eric Ngcobo.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Sir, application number 0588/96. The day being the 5th of August 1999. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same but would the legal representatives please place themselves on record?

MS JELALL: I am Sherine Jelall of Sherine Jelall and Associates. I represent the families of the victims.

MR FALCONER: May it please Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Patrick Falconer. I appear on behalf of an implicated person Mr Sheabane Zuma.

MR MAPOMA: For the record Chairperson, I'm Zuko Mapoma the evidence leader. Thank you.

MS LOONAT: Members of the Committee, I am Serena Loonat and I'm from Krisna Haraj and Company, I represent the applicant this morning. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Right shall we continue?

MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, if I may have an opportunity. My learned colleague representing the applicant has indicated to me this morning that the applicant does not implicate my client, Mr Zuma in any regard whatsoever. As is borne out by the application papers, it seems that the applicant furthermore in the papers does not implicate Mr Zuma and if my colleague could confirm that on record, I'd respectfully request to be excused from these proceedings.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairman, I have consulted with my client and he agrees that Mr Zuma is not implicated in any way whatsoever in these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I take it that the victims are not suggesting that Mr Zuma was in any way implicated?

MS JELALL: Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it's been nice seeing you. Goodbye.

MR FALCONER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the applicant now going to give evidence?

MS LOONAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

SIBOSISO ERIC NGCOBO: (sworn states)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mapoma, did you see Mr Lindau Mkhize?

MR MAPOMA: Pardon Chair?

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see Mr Lindau Mkhize?

MR MAPOMA: No, Sir, I have not seen him.

ADV DE JAGER: He reported at our office and he's been notified to be present and he is somewhere here, I thought you've met him, I see he's also an implicated party.

MR MAPOMA: I will consult with him Chairperson, I've not met with him.

EXAMINATION BY MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson. Mr Ngcobo, please state for the record, how old are you now?

MR NGCOBO: 27 years.

MS LOONAT: So you were about 23 years old when you committed this offence, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I was 19 years old.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairman, the arithmetic doesn't work out. Is that important?

MR MAPOMA: We didn't hear you.

MS LOONAT: Oh I beg your pardon. He could not be 19 years old when this offence was committed, by my reckoning he should have been about 23 years old. Is that important for the record?

MR MAPOMA: We'll take it as correct, Chairperson.

MS LOONAT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This took place when? In 1991?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, in 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: 8 years ago. That would make him 19 at the time, if he's 27 today.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, how old are you today? How old are you now

MR NGCOBO: 27 years old.

ADV DE JAGER: But according to your application, your date of birth is 1968?

MR NGCOBO: No, it is not correct. I was born in 1970.

ADV DE JAGER: But even then you would be 29 today, if you'd been born in 1970.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, of which party are you a member?


MS LOONAT: Do you have proof of membership of being affiliated to this party?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I do have, but I don't have it in my possession right now.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairman, I'm not getting the translation.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now? Yes, I'm on channel two. Can you hear now?

MS LOONAT: That's better. It's working. Thank you.

I'll repeat the question.

ADV DE JAGER: He's told us that he was an IFP member, but he hasn't got proof with him today, but he's got proof somewhere.

MS LOONAT: Tell me, what did you do for the IFP when you were a member?

MR NGCOBO: I didn't hold any position, I was just an ordinary member of the IFP.

MS LOONAT: I cannot hear the interpretation. Please could you repeat the answer?

MR NGCOBO: I didn't hold any position.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, you say that three of your brothers were killed by the ANC members or supporters, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MS LOONAT: Can you tell us approximately how long ago this was?

MR NGCOBO: Between 1987 and 1988 or 1989, somewhere there, I'm not quite sure.

MS LOONAT: Please tell the Committee members the circumstances in which your brothers were killed.

MR NGCOBO: I will first relate to the circumstances which occurred when Sepo was killed. Policemen came to my home and my mother was inside the house. My mother heard a gun fire and when she rushed outside she found Sepo lying down. He was been shot by the police.

MS LOONAT: Do the police have any party affiliation to your knowledge?

MR NGCOBO: The way they conducted themselves, I think they were aligned, because he didn't do anything for them

to kill him or to shoot him.

MS LOONAT: Please tell us, what do you mean when you say their conduct indicated that they were ANC members?

MR NGCOBO: The way they operated and the way they killed him, there was absolutely no reason for them to kill him.

MS LOONAT: Did your mother and your families confirm afterwards that it was a party political killing?

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't be able to say so, but I wouldn't be able to tell you how my mother perceived this whole thing. I personally perceived it that way.

ADV DE JAGER: Was your brother involved in politics?


ADV DE JAGER: What role did he play in politics?

MR NGCOBO: He was a member of the IFP.

MS LOONAT: You are the youngest of the family, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this killing reported to the local police?

MR NGCOBO: It was just reported to Mr Zuma, who was our Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Where from were these police? For which police station or from which police service?

MR NGCOBO: I will say they were from Stanger police station even though I'm not sure, because at the time there was violence.

MR SIBANYONI: In some of the applications we've heard, we got information that the police in KwaZulu were supportive of the IFP and not the ANC. What is your comment about that?

MR NGCOBO: I will dispute that because I didn't experience such a thing, I personally.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you have any information that these who killed your brother were supportive of the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: No, I wouldn't know to, or I wouldn't be able to say they were with the ANC but I'm just saying the way they killed him, that's what I personally suspected.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, when your brother Sepo was killed, you say it was reported to Mr Zuma. From the records Mr Zuma is the IFP leader in the area, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

MS LOONAT: Could you perhaps remember what his comments were as to perhaps why your brother was killed that day?

MR NGCOBO: My mother was the one who reported this matter to him. What I can explain is that he said he was going to report this thing to the police and other police were going to investigate the matter, so that the police were to be arrested.

MS LOONAT: So there was no indication of whether it was a party political killing. Was there any discussion about that with Mr Zuma?

MR NGCOBO: No. I didn't hear about that.

MS LOONAT: Now please go on about the killings of your other two brothers, Mr Ngcobo.

MR NGCOBO: Mfanfuti was killed. We were at Mr Zuma's place on that day because we had heard rumours that we were going to be attacked and I was at home. My brother was at Mr Zuma's place. When I was home I heard gunfire. As I was wondering, I was told by my mother that Mfanfuti had been killed.

MS LOONAT: How old were you at the time? Can you remember?

MR NGCOBO: Even though I cannot be sure, I think I was between 19 and 20.

MS LOONAT: Were you told why your brother was killed?

MR NGCOBO: What I heard is that the attackers came from the other street and the main road divided the area, the other side was the IFP and the other side was the ANC and what I heard is that the attackers came from the ANC stronghold to the IFP, that's where he was shot and killed.

MS LOONAT: So in fact you say they crossed the line into your IFP area and killed your brother in your mother's home? Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MS LOONAT: What happened after that?

MR NGCOBO: Police were called and they took my brother's body.

MS LOONAT: What happened to the attackers? Was there any discussion about that?

MR NGCOBO: I think when they attacked, the IFP also counter attacked them. They were shooting each other and it was late at night and they ran away, or they ran back to where they came from.

MS LOONAT: So you were not present at the time of this attack, were you?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already explained, I was at home.

MS LOONAT: So your information is that the ANC attacked the IFP that day. Please go on about the other killing.


MS LOONAT: So please tell us about the other brother that was killed.

MR NGCOBO: If I'm not mistaken, I think it was on a Saturday. He was going to town.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on. Do you know anything more about this killing of your brother, Mfanfuti

MR NGCOBO: What I know, as I've already explained, that it was late at night and when he was shot, he was shot at Mr Zuma's house and the attackers came from the other side of the street and they were shooting each other, that's how he was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you see you have made an affidavit which has been put before us, or it is called an affidavit. At page 6, and in that you say:

"My brother Mfanfuti Mbelo was killed by one of the members of the ANC. The name of that member of ANC is Mr Lucky Cele."

But now you say you don't know, it was late at night. Why did you, in your affidavit, say it was Mr Lucky Cele?

MR NGCOBO: This is what I heard, that Lucky was present on the day when they attacked them.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't say he was present, you say that he was the person who killed him.

MR NGCOBO: I'm saying it's him because later, after the incident, I heard that he was present in the vicinity when they were shooting.

MS LOONAT: Do you know Mr Jabulane Dlamini?

MR NGCOBO: I know Mr Jabulane Zuma, not Dlamini.

MS LOONAT: Just to refresh your memory, you say on page 6 of the bundle that

"Jabulane Dlamini was present when Lucky killed my brother with the firearm."

I know it happened a long time ago and perhaps you can't remember, but now do you remember? It was Jabulane Dlamini who informed you that your brother was killed by an ANC member, can you remember that?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, this is what I heard after it had happened and he knew him. He's the one who told me and others as well.

MS LOONAT: Sorry, I don't understand. Did Jabulane Dlamini tell you and others that Lucky Cele was the one who killed your brother? Is that what you're saying?

MR NGCOBO: He said to me he saw Lucky Cele killing my brother.

ADV SIBANYONI: Is this Jabulane Dlamini the same person you are saying is Jabulane Zuma?


MS LOONAT: Please tell us what happened to your other brother that was killed.

MR NGCOBO: I think it was on a Saturday, he was going to town. He was together with his friend when they bordered a kombi. I think he was with Jabulane Dlamini who was with my brother.

ADV DE JAGER: What was your third brother's name? Was that Bongane? Or what's the name?

MR NGCOBO: Bongane. As they were inside the kombi, this is what Jabulane explained. A group of people came, approached the kombi and some of them pointed at him and saying, "There's and Inkatha member" and when he tried to escape they ran after him and they killed him.

MS LOONAT: I'm sorry, did you say, were you present at the time of this killing or did you hear about it afterwards?

MR NGCOBO: When this happened I wasn't there. I was at home.

MS LOONAT: So on all three instances you only got reports from other people that it was the ANC members that were seen to have attacked and killed your brothers? Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell us a few minutes ago when I was asking you about this passage that you didn't, you knew Mr Jabulane Zuma, not Jabulane Dlamini? He said that didn't he?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, he said that.

MR NGCOBO: I'm talking Jabulane Dlamini, the one who was with my brother. They were going to town and Jabulane Zuma is the one who told me that he saw Lucky Cele shooting my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: So are they different people? Jabulane Dlamini and Jabulane Zuma, are they different people?

MR NGCOBO: They are different people.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did you then tell us you do not know Jabulane Dlamini?

MR NGCOBO: What I was trying to explain was that it was not Jabulane Dlamini who told me that my brother was killed by Lucky Cele, it was Jabulane Zuma, but the other Jabulane who was accompanying my brother to town then was Jabulane Dlamini, he's the one who told me how my brother was killed.

MR SIBANYONI: A few minutes ago I asked you whether Jabulane Dlamini is the same person as Jabulane Zuma and your answer was yes.

MR NGCOBO: I will probably say I was confused because I was trying to clarify as to which Jabulane told me what.

MS LOONAT: May I go on now?


MS LOONAT: The circumstances under which Bongane was killed you say were also reported to you as being an ANC attack on him, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MS LOONAT: You were 19 years old when this happened?


MS LOONAT: Were your brothers and your mother and yourself all involved in politics, affiliated to the IFP at that time?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

MS LOONAT: Please tell us what happened on that fateful day when you formed the intention to avenge the death of your brothers? That was on that Sunday in October 1991.

MR NGCOBO: As I've already told the Committee about the death of my brothers, after the killing of my third brother, I decided that I was going to do whatever it takes. In 1991 we were in a shebeen and after the liquor had run out, we started talking or discussing and I was one of those people who decided to go and attack the ANC area.

MS LOONAT: Where exactly was this shebeen situated?

MR NGCOBO: Frans was present and was the one who was selling the alcohol and after we'd finished the alcohol, we went outside to discuss.

MS LOONAT: No, my question is where was this shebeen situated where you were sitting and having this discussion? What area was it called?

MR NGCOBO: In the same area, just down the street.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there two areas, one occupied by the ANC and one occupied by the IFP?

MR NGCOBO: It's one area divided by a road, the main road.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Now this shebeen, was it in the ANC area on that side of the road, or on the IFP side of the road?

MR NGCOBO: The shebeen was in the IFP area. There are many shebeens there in the area. One will choose as to where to go and have your drink.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it correct that you were drinking there with Themba and then were joined by Bongnkosi Lindau Mkhize?

MR NGCOBO: It is true that we were together with Lindau, Themba, Bongane and others. I don't remember their names.

CHAIRPERSON: And you drank a great deal?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did drink a lot, but not that much.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it seems from the Judgment that the three of you drank 8 quarts of beer and a half bottle of brandy.

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

MS LOONAT: So you maintain you were not drunk that day when you all sat and discussed this massacre which you were planning?

MR NGCOBO: No, I wasn't that drunk. Yes of course I was a bit drunk, but not that much.

MS LOONAT: What did you actually discuss? What were you going to do that day, you and your 8 friends?

MR NGCOBO: We decided that we were going to go and attack the ANC and kill them, the ANC people.

MS LOONAT: Who was the leader of this group that you were sitting in?

MR NGCOBO: I will say it was myself.

MS LOONAT: And what was your reason for wanting to attack the ANC on the other side of the road? The ANC dwellers on the other side of the road?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already told this Committee that I had been tortured by the death of my brothers and I had already decided that no matter what happened to me, I was going to revenge.

MS LOONAT: And you still maintain that at all times you were convinced that your three brothers were murdered by ANC supporters for political reasons, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

MS LOONAT: What happened on that day when you made this decision, what happened thereafter?

MR NGCOBO: I was the one who was armed with a gun and it was my gun. We left. In the middle of the road we saw that or we realised that some of us were too drunk and we decided that those who were too drunk should be left behind. Lindau and the others were left behind because they were too drunk. Myself and Themba, we continued. When we arrived at the shop where they were, I saw the deceased in the shop and the other two men and the third one I didn't see, the one from Nkateni.

When I got inside the shop, when I looked at this other guy, I decided then and there that he was the one I was going to kill. I don't know what happened, whether he got scared because what happened, he went right inside the shop. When I got inside the shop after him, he was now coming out. I pulled my gun. The deceased grabbed me and I decided there and then that if I do not kill him now, he was going to kill me, that's why I shot at him. A kombi came and it reversed and I heard they were telling me that there was a kombi and the people were armed with guns. That's when we ran and they started firing.

MS LOONAT: Did you know who was going to be in the shop at the time, before you entered the other side of the road separating the IFP and the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: No, I didn't know as to who will be there in the shop when I arrived there, but what I had told myself was that if I arrive there and found people who were ANC members, I was going to kill them.

MS LOONAT: So you had no intention of attacking the murderers of your brother, you went there to attack anybody that was, in your opinion, belonged to the ANC party, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this in revenge for the killings of your brothers?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, you can put it that way because the reason I committed these crimes was because I had lost my brothers.

ADV SIBANYONI: And you never intended the IFP to benefit anything out of your actions, is that so?

MR NGCOBO: No, nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I'd like to clarify a few points again please. You have said in your evidence a minute or two ago that you were the one armed with a gun. That it was your gun.


CHAIRPERSON: Is that true?


CHAIRPERSON: You see, in your sworn statement page 4 you said:

"I then went with Themba Dladla, who was the owner of the firearm, 9mm, I then took it from him as I wanted to revenge my brothers who were killed by the ANC."

MR NGCOBO: I am confused there because what I said when this affidavit was written was that I was with Themba, but I was armed, it was my gun. He wanted to use my gun, but I didn't give it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not what you said, I have read to you what you said:

"I then went with Themba Dladla, who was the owner of the firearm."

MR NGCOBO: I am not certain about some point there. You said to me it is written that I went to him. Where? Where? I didn't go to Themba. Where?

CHAIRPERSON: You went with Themba. You have told us two minutes ago that you went with Themba Dladla. I'll start at the beginning of the paragraph:

"After planning the attack, other people got drunk and there was no use in taking them to the shop. I then went with Themba Dladla, who was the owner of the firearm"

MR NGCOBO: I think they didn't get me right. What I said is that we were all together and then those who were drunk, we told them to remain behind. Themba and myself we went, we continued to go to the shop.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what you said here. That you and Themba went. But you said the gun was Themba's and you took it from him.

MS LOONAT: May I say something?


MS LOONAT: Perhaps my client is trying to say that it is his gun. He owns the gun but it might have been in the possession of Themba Dladla which is why he just grabbed it and went, that is perhaps what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said Themba Dladla was the owner of the gun, not the person who had the gun. The owner, is what he says in his affidavit. It says there the owner.

MR NGCOBO: I'm hearing this for the first time because what I said was that Themba accompanied me, but I never said that Themba owned that gun.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Themba have the gun on that day in his hands?

MR NGCOBO: No, he didn't have a gun on that day.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he shoot anybody on that day?


ADV DE JAGER: Who helped you in preparing this affidavit? It's appearing on page 10, could you please show it to him?

It's page 10 and 11.

MS LOONAT: May I just have a word with my client, Mr Chairman?


MS LOONAT: May I just put questions to him about it, for the record? In the sense that the police wrote ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I want to ask him about the last paragraph and I want to point it out at this stage to you. What I wanted to put to him is:

"Dladla was there when I committed the crime. Mr Themba Dladla shot three and 1 person dead."

So according to this, Themba Dladla did the shooting and that's what I'm getting at and you could try and clear that up and what's the position with this document.

MS LOONAT: As I understand, he says that this statement was made to policemen who wrote it out and I may stand to be corrected, but it was not reread to him, so he's not fully au fait with what is in this statement, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we find out, did Dladla shoot three people?


ADV SIBANYONI: Your mike is off. Can you put your mike on first?

MR NGCOBO: No, as I have already explained, the only person who shot there it was myself and then afterwards the kombi came and it disturbed us. We ran away, but Themba didn't shoot anyone.

ADV SIBANYONI: Can I just - I didn't understand properly. Did you say on page 9 it's not your handwriting? Do I understand you correctly?

MR NGCOBO: I will say the policeman wrote this, the policeman who was helping me write this statement.

ADV SIBANYONI: The version you told the police, was it the truth or was it perhaps lies, you trying to defend yourself before the criminal court?

MR NGCOBO: What I've written here for the Truth Commission, it was true.

ADV SIBANYONI: And the one which you told the police was not the truth, is that so?

MR NGCOBO: As I was explaining, that the policeman was helping me to write the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngcobo, are you sure it was a policeman because you see both these statements were apparently made on paper belonging to the department of correctional services. It was filled in in accordance with their procedure. It contains the address and the telephone number of the prison, your prison number ...(indistinct) prison warder.

MR NGCOBO: Initially when I made my application another inmate helped me to fill the application form and then later I received a reply from TRC that I should write in details and that's when the police helped me. Probably the prison warder.

CHAIRPERSON: It's probably the prison warder, yes, because I have never known the police when they are preparing a statement to do so on paper belonging to the Department of Correctional Services. So you say it's probably a prison warder who helped you after the TRC made certain inquiries?


CHAIRPERSON: And you were trying to tell the truth.

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat in fairness to your client I must point out that the two statements seem to be, the one appearing on page 7, 8 and 9 and the other one appearing on pages 10 and 11, seems to be contradictory. In the later one on page 11 he said he started the shooting, he'd done the shooting, he'd emptied the magazine and on the previous one as I've quoted, on page 9 he's saying that:

"Themba Ndladla was there when I committed the crime. Mr Themba Ndladla shoot three and I person died."

MR NGCOBO: No, I don't know anything like that.

MS LOONAT: Mr Chairperson, my client is now telling the truth as he can remember it. He has, I admit, written two contradictory statements and it would appear to me that he was, that what was said was not taken down correctly the first time, or so he tries to implicate now. I think that what he's trying to say right now is the final statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, so you can go on then. You say this is his final statement. This is the statement which is typed at page 4 and there's the statement at page 10. You said in your statement that you went with him and you took the firearm and went to Sinando's shop:

"Where I saw people enjoying the beer."

Do you remember saying that in your statement? Did you say that? The people were enjoying beer. You then go on, I'm quoting from your statement:

"I started shooting them."

Did you say that?



"I shot until I emptied the magazine which was loaded with 16 ammunition."



"Three people got injuries. Those who were one known to me as Mahlatini from the Slenger area."

Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Correct.


"One known as Joks from the Slenger area."

Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Correct.


"And Ndundu Sebokulu, also from the Slenger area."

MR NGCOBO: Correct.


"The fourth victim lost his life on the scene and that was Marobe Majose."

Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So in your sworn statement you set out accurately what happened, that you went there, you found people drinking beer and just emptied your gun at them and killed them. You knew the people who were there, you knew some of them, you knew the three who were injured and you knew the name of the one who was killed. Correct?

MR NGCOBO: These were people that I knew by seeing them.


MR NGCOBO: After that we ran away. After a few days, this happened in 1991 and I was arrested in November.

MS LOONAT: Do you remember the clothes you were wearing that day?

MR NGCOBO: You mean on the day of the incident?

MS LOONAT: The day of the incident.


MS LOONAT: Please describe them to us.

MR NGCOBO: I was wearing a green tracksuit and a white vest underneath and a jersey.

MS LOONAT: Is this the uniform of the police or any particular group, or was it your own clothes?

MR NGCOBO: The tracksuit was a police tracksuit.

MS LOONAT: Was there any reason that you wore police clothing that day?

MR NGCOBO: The reason was to disguise.

MS LOONAT: Please go on. What happened after that?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already explained, that I was arrested. I was arrested in hospital.

MS LOONAT: The police clothing that you wore, in your opinion, is clothing worn by policemen who are ANC affiliated, is that what you honestly believed? Is that why you wore police apparel that day and went into an ANC area?

MR NGCOBO: No. The tracksuit was more like SAP tracksuit, or it is an SAP tracksuit.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you wear it, put it on on that day?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already explained, the reason I've worn that tracksuit, it was because I didn't want to raise any suspicions, it was sort of a disguise so that when people see me, they will think I am a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you want to walk around in disguise?

MR NGCOBO: This is how I thought, that if I do not disguise then it will be easy for them to recognise me. It's better if they just see me when I'm there or when I'm ready to start committing the crime.

MS LOONAT: And it worked for you that day, to find yourself in the ANC and not recognised immediately as an IFP member, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, as I understand your evidence, you just walked across the road straight into the Sinando Shop. It was just across the road, wasn't it, where you shot these people?


MS LOONAT: Were you injured at all on that day, Mr Ngcobo?


ADV DE JAGER: Were you treated in hospital, or how did it come that you were in the hospital when the police arrested you?

MR NGCOBO: I got injured one Friday morning, I think it was Friday evening and I got injured in one of the shebeens where we were drinking and I was admitted in hospital the following day, on Saturday.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, I want to put it to you because this is sort of troubling me in your application, you've been at a shebeen there, you've been drinking, now you tell us again you've been injured a week later while drinking in a shebeen. Wasn't this killing only as a result of the drinking and the brawls that result after drinking, or was it in fact a political killing? Had it anything to do with politics or was it because of heavy drinking that you landed up killing people?

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't say that it was because of alcohol because even if I was sober, I was still going to do that. Yes, I do drink, but I didn't do this because I was too drunk, I did that because I wanted to and I thought it was right for me to do that.

ADV SIBANYONI: But it had nothing to do with politics, it was merely to revenge the death of your brother, is that so?

MR NGCOBO: I will put it this way. The reason they were killed, it was because of politics, therefore if I decided to revenge it is still because of politics. They were killed because of political reasons, that's why I took those steps.

MS LOONAT: How do you feel today about what you did on that fateful day of October 20th, 1991. The families of the victims are here. Would you like to express how you feel about it today?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already decided to come before the Commission and tell the whole truth about what I've done, I think I am supposed to apologise to the victims about what I've done and the way I've done it. I am not hiding anything and I'm sure they really want to know as to what really happened to their loved ones and I am telling them the whole truth and I do feel a great remorse about what I've done.

MS LOONAT: Do you wish now to make friends with the ANC or are you going to keep yourself separate and away from them in future?

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat, that would really not assist us in granting amnesty or not granting amnesty. It's not one of the aspects required by the Act to consider whether he will be friends today with the ANC or not, it's irrelevant as far as our decision is concerned. As far as reconciliation is concerned, he's expressed his regret towards the family, that's as far as you need go.

MS LOONAT: Do you have anything else that you would like to add here, Mr Ngcobo? Is there anything else you'd like to say to the Committee?


MS LOONAT: I have no more questions.


CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment at this stage.




MS JELALL: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS JELALL: Sir I point out to you page 2 of your application, which is page 2 of the bundle, paragraph 10(a) where you state your political objectives sought to be achieved was to revenge because:

"They first killed my brothers and secondly they burned at my home."

Are you trying to tell us that they burned your house as well?


MS JELALL: Was this the ANC?


MS JELALL: So when did this happen?

MR NGCOBO: I think it was in 1988, I'm not sure.

MS JELALL: How did you know that the ANC was involved in this particular attack?

MR NGCOBO: There were people at home when they came to burn down the house, it was during the day.

MS JELALL: So you heard this from the people at home, that the ANC had actually burned ...(indistinct)


MS JELALL: So you've indicated that you are a member, or were a member of the IFP. Were you an active member?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already mentioned, that I was just an ordinary member of the IFP.

MS JELALL: Yes, Sir, but my question to you is were you active, did you conduct any other attacks on the ANC prior to this incident for which you are claiming amnesty?

MR NGCOBO: Sometimes when there were attacks between ANC and IFP I used to take part because there were continuous fights between ANC and IFP and I used to take part in those fights.

MS JELALL: What exactly was your participation in this fight?

MR NGCOBO: I will also attack.

MS JELALL: Does that mean you killing people, wounding them?

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't be certain that I personally injured someone, but I knew that when we were fighting each other some were being injured.

MS JELALL: So, but then answer my question directly, did you injure anybody, you in particular?

ADV DE JAGER: He said that there was a war and he can't say whether he personally injured anybody, but he was involved in the fighting and I presume it's like two armies shooting at each other and I wouldn't know whether I'm the one who's killed the other one, or whether it was my, the person next to me.

MS JELALL: Right. So you described ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on, what weapons did you use in these attacks?

MR NGCOBO: Before I owned a gun I would use a knife and sometimes I would use a butcher knife.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you had the gun, would you use the gun?


MS JELALL: So as you've indicated in your questioning before and your answer, you have heard from other people that the ANC was actually responsible for the attacks on your brothers. You have no direct knowledge thereof, do you?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I heard from other people but also I was certain that it was ANC that was involved in the killing of my brothers.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you've told us that one of your brothers was killed by members of the police force. How can you say you were certain it was the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: I am certain that Mfanfuti and Bongane were killed by ANC and in the area where he was killed it was an ANC area and ANC was responsible in taking him from the kombi and killing him.

MS JELALL: Sir, you've indicated that Zuma was the leader of the IFP in the area, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Correct.

MS JELALL: So every time you went out on the prior attacks that you spoke of that you said you were not certain whether you were responsible for injuring anybody, were these directives to attack given from Zuma or did you confer or concur with him before you went out on these attacks?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I don't want to interrupt but this may now lead to problems, because at the beginning it was stated here and it was conceded by all parties present that he wouldn't be implicated and I think you confirmed it too. If the answer to your question may be yes, then we'll have to recall Mr Falconer, because then in fact he must be present.

MS JELALL: We would leave that question out then and I'll proceed.

ADV DE JAGER: No, I don't want you to understand me but - I just want to show you the implications, but if you think you should ask the question, you should continue, I'm not restricting you from asking it.

MS JELALL: Sir, I have read a document which I don't think the Evidence Leader has given to us, which has a statement from Zuma saying that he had nothing to do with this at all. That document has been shown to me by the investigator in this matter. Unfortunately it is not contained in the bundle and that is why I posed the question. I don't know if the Evidence Leader knows of it, whether he would give copies thereof, which would actually bring finality to that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it possible to achieve the result I think you are aiming at, by merely asking, were the other attacks you have referred to, done on behalf of and with the approval of the IFP?

MR NGCOBO: We didn't report or notify Mr Zuma about our intention to go and attack because we thought that he wasn't going to allow us, therefore that's why we simply went and attacked.

ADV SIBANYONI: Excuse me. Then if Mr Zuma would not allow you, that means the IFP wouldn't allow you to go on with the attacks, what do you say?


ADV SIBANYONI: Which will further mean what you did you did for your own benefit and not for the benefit of the IFP, because the IFP was against that, would be against

that. What is your comment?

MR NGCOBO: I will say it is correct because we didn't report this to Mr Zuma.

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Loonat I really think you should consult with your client. I don't know whether he understands the procedure, but if this is correct, perhaps it's time that you have a discussion with him and see what's the position.

MS LOONAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I don't want to speak for him but I can say that he doesn't quite understand the question. May I stand down for 5 minutes to share the implication ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: The trouble is, I don't know whether the people understands the position. We have often heard that the IFP didn't approve of anything and that would, if that's the position, if that's the official position, everybody who acted in this war were acting on their own, not on behalf of a party, not on behalf of any known political party and that would seriously affect the application of members here of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: There is also the problem that arises in respect of, where acts are committed for reasons of personal, where there's a personal vendetta, personal malice. Out of personal malice, ill will or spite, Section 23 (ii). Perhaps you'd like to discuss that with your client. We'll take an adjournment. You can let us know as soon as you're ready.

MS LOONAT: Thank you Mr Chairperson.




MS LOONAT ADDRESSES: My submissions are, on behalf of my client, is that he still stands by the fact that this attack was undertaken on his own. As far as the relation with Mr Zuma, who is the IFP leader, where he is situated, all attacks from about 1987 I think it is, they were never ever reported to Mr Zuma, not always did they get instructions from Mr Zuma, he seems to be a figurehead there.

ADV DE JAGER: Can he get amnesty then?

MS LOONAT: Sorry, Mr Chair?

ADV DE JAGER: On what basis could we give him amnesty if it wasn't with the approval of his party, or on behalf of his party, or on the order of his party?

MS LOONAT: He says it was always, there was never any personal agenda. It was always IFP related. ANC attacks on IFP related properties, people wherever and they sat, the motive was always a political one, there was never a personal agenda and although he did not take direct instructions from Mr Zuma, it has always been a silent mandate that they would do these things, Mr Zuma would hear of it but no comments would be made of it, so it seems that whenever attacks were made in this area, it was by this group of which sometimes he was the leader and sometimes the others were, but Mr Zuma was not always informed nor did he comment or make approval, or give his approval or disapproval, but it continued for a long time and it was for the purpose of creating peace between the, of creating peace and harmony in his own community from attacks from the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: We've made you aware of our problem and you'll have to address us on that please, because it's creating a difficulty. We've got the Act and if we can't sort of get it within the framework of the Act, we've got problems and you'll have to show to us that it falls within the framework of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Further questions?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS JELALL: Just one, in order to assist the Committee. Sir, you've indicated to the Committee that you know the victims by sight. The victims being Ndundu Absolom Sebokulu, Michael Gadebe, Domisane Welcome Mahlatini and Mr Bongane Wellington Mojose. Do you really just know them by sight or did you know them personally?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR NGCOBO: Before there was a demarcation in the area that the others were IFP and the others were ANC, I've known them and later after there were conflicts and fights between the IFP and the ANC, then we were no longer in good terms and we never chat with each other.

MS JELALL: Is it not correct that Mr Michael Gadebe, a victim, his name was mentioned earlier, was accosted by yourself on the 18th of October 1991 at The Grange, which is in the Pietermaritzburg area, and you requested money from him at gunpoint. When he did not give you the money you asked him to remove his clothes, took his clothes away and he has no idea what would have happened to him, because a taxi arrived and the lights of the taxi is what actually diverted your attention and Mr Gadebe got away from you on the 18th October 1991 which was the Friday before the Sunday of this attack.

MR NGCOBO: No, I do not remember anything like that. The only thing that I remember is that, is the incident. If he is claiming that I had him on gunpoint, what made me not to shoot him?

MS JELALL: So, like I said to you there was a taxi in the area. On page 26 of the bundle, which is actually the Judgment, Mr Gadebe's evidence is there and Mr Gadebe is before the Committee to give evidence to the same effect. Page 26 of the bundle, read it, it actually starts on page 25. This is the evidence of Mr Gadebe, where he goes on in examination to say:

"He described it as the Friday before the Sunday on which the shooting took place. He said that on the Friday he had been on his way to a place Grange at about 9 in the evening when the accused"


CHAIRPERSON: Remember it's got to be interpreted.

MS JELALL: "... when the accused and a companion had accosted him and first asked him for money, but upon being told that the witness did not have any money, the witness, we must bear in mind is Mr Gadebe, they had ordered him to take off his clothes he was wearing, which he refused. A scuffle ensued and just as the accused and his companion were about to attack Mr Gadebe, the companion being armed with a stone, the kombi had arrived in the vicinity with it's hazard lights flashing and Mr Gadebe had seized the opportunity to break free and run away."

I put it to you, Sir, that you did commit that act. What would you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: No, I don't know anything like that. He is saying a motor car approached. If there was enough time for us to ask for money and ask him to take off his clothes, I think that was enough for us to attack him and if it wasn't at night, why was I going to be scared of light?

ADV DE JAGER: Was it at night or was it in the day time when this happened? Well you said if it wasn't at night why would you be scared, but if you weren't there, what's the relevance of that?

MR NGCOBO: He mentioned that I wanted clothes from him and it was on Sunday, it wasn't at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you try to get clothes from him on a Sunday, in the daytime, is that what you're saying?


CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand your answer then. He said here that it was at 9 o'clock in the evening on the Friday. You say it wasn't at night and it was in the daytime and it was on Sunday.

MR NGCOBO: What I'm trying to say is that I don't know anything or any incident that occurred on Friday, the only incident that I know happened on Sunday and during the day, I don't know anything about Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: The report of the Judgment doesn't make mention of anyone being at gunpoint, there's no mention of a gun there, is there?

MS JELALL: No, Mr Chairperson, my instructions were - Okay, so we go on. We go on to Mr Mahlatini. Do you know him personally?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I do.

MS JELALL: Is it correct that you were living with the Mahlatini family?

MR NGCOBO: What do you mean?

MS JELALL: Living there, as in sharing a room in their house, as being a tenant in their house?

MR NGCOBO: I will say my parents house it's in their stand.

MS JELALL: Did you know if Mr Mahlatini was politically motivated, was he a member of any political party?


MS JELALL: Sir, I put it to you that Mr Mahlatini is going to give evidence to say that he is not a member of any political party and you are aware of that because of your relationship with him.

MR NGCOBO: As I've already mentioned, that before the conflicts and before there were fights between IFP and ANC, we will chat with these people, we will sit together, but at the time when the incident occurred, it was no longer the same, therefore we were no longer talking to each other.

MS JELALL: So your description of what happened on that particular day, the 20th October, is that you walked towards the store, you saw one person walking into the store and you thought the person was going to come out with some type of weapon, so therefore you shot at this person. That is correct, isn't it?

MR NGCOBO: Would you please repeat your last part of your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you putting this as the version he's put to us.

MS JELALL: Mr Chairperson, he said that he went into the store, deep into the store.

ADV DE JAGER: But he didn't mention anything of he thought that the person was going to fetch a weapon or something.

MS JELALL: He said he saw somebody walking in.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you shoot that person who walked into the store? What was the reason?

MR NGCOBO: What I said was, when I arrived at the shop I saw the deceased sitting down and someone was standing and the other one was next to him. Before I could draw out my gun I saw someone getting inside the shop and I went inside the shop and there were kids inside the shop and females as well. He didn't stay that long inside the shop. He came back and he stood right where he was and I took out the gun and as I wanted to shoot at this guy, the deceased grabbed me, that's when I shot at the deceased and I shot at these other two guys. That's when they started running away.

MS JELALL: It is your own evidence that whatever you did was not for the furtherance of the IFP, that was the answer to a question put to you by Mr J B Sibanyoni, is that not correct?

MR NGCOBO: What I can say is that everything that happened, it was because those people were the ANC and they were attacking IFP. I cannot say I was just doing these things for myself because it was, they were attacking IFP because they were ANC, therefore I was attacking them, because they were attacking us.

MS JELALL: Was there not, was the area not at a stable stage in 1991? Had the violence not calmed down a little bit, the political violence?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I will say it had subsided.

MS JELALL: Okay, we've come to the stage now where we've ascertained that it had subsided. When was the last, can you recall when was the last time the ANC had actually attacked the IFP in that area?

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't be able to remember that, but what I can say is that we would hear that someone had been killed, not in the attacks as such, you wouldn't find a group of IFP attackers or a group of ANC attackers, but you will hear that someone had been shot dead.

MS JELALL: Is it possible that these people could have been shot dead for any reason, not because of the political parties that they belonged to specifically?

MR NGCOBO: You will hear afterwards that a certain political organisation had shot someone who belonged to another political organisation, like when you're driving past a certain street or you're walking in a certain street, you will hear that someone had been shot dead.

MS JELALL: So again we come to the question of this police tracksuit. If you were a member of the IFP and you know that you're attacking the ANC, I put it to you that there won't be a reason to disguise yourself as a member unless your motives were for your own cause and you were trying to actually commit some criminal activity for your own personal gains.

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't do anything simply because I have a criminal intention. I didn't want to take off that tracksuit because I wanted to mislead them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngcobo, you have told us, as I understand your version that you went drinking in the shebeen where you met a couple of your friends and various other people came in. Is that correct?


CHAIRPERSON: You drank in the shebeen till it ran out of liquor. Correct?


CHAIRPERSON: You then went outside and you started talking about going and attacking the ANC.


CHAIRPERSON: That was the first time that had been discussed, according to your evidence, when you were outside the shebeen.

MR NGCOBO: On that day, yes, it was the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, why had you disguised yourself in a tracksuit so people could not recognise you, when nothing had been discussed for that day when you got dressed and left home? It's not true, is it? That's not why you put the tracksuit on, is it Mr Ngcobo? I see you're licking your lips, are you having problems?

MR NGCOBO: I did explain that I had been wearing that tracksuit and then and there I knew that it wasn't going to be a problem for me to go and commit these crimes because I was wearing the tracksuit.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your explanation now?


MS JELALL: Sir, what standard did you leave school?


MS JELALL: Were you employed for the period prior to your arrest?


MS JELALL: Who supported you?

MR NGCOBO: I was staying at home.

MS JELALL: Is there any way that you tried to procure an income?

MR NGCOBO: I was being supported by my mother and my brothers.

MS JELALL: Okay, but by 1991 your brothers were deceased. Were there any surviving brothers?

MR NGCOBO: Two of them are still alive.

MS JELALL: So I put it to you that these, this attack that you carried out, was not done in the interest of the IFP but was done for your personal gain and for your own personal sense of wanting revenge, it had nothing to do with politics whatsoever. What would you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already mentioned that what I did, I did under what circumstances, if those circumstances were not like that, I wouldn't have done that.

MS JELALL: No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo, I just want your comment on some few aspects here. For your information, the TRC investigator went to consult with Mr Zuma and Mr Zuma, as you have already pointed out, said he never instructed you to go and attack there. And I take it that you confirmed that?


MR MAPOMA: And he went on to call your mother who verified this and Mr Zuma went on to say that you were never instructed to attack there and at that time when you attacked there, the political violence had subsided, the situation was relatively peaceful at that time. What is your comment to that?

MR NGCOBO: I wouldn't say anything.

MR MAPOMA: He went on to say that those who wanted to attack in the incident, which is the question today, were not even IFP political activists, that is yourself included. What do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: I'm hearing this for the first time.

MR MAPOMA: Do you dispute what Mr Zuma says, that you were not even active within the IFP politics?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I do dispute that.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. Now, is it your evidence that you only took the decision to go and attack at the time when you ran out of liquor?

MR NGCOBO: It was before we ran out of alcohol, but this thing had been torturing me, or it had been on my mind a long time as I've explained that I was drinking but I wasn't that much drunk.

MR MAPOMA: Where were you drinking?

MR NGCOBO: At Slenger.

MR MAPOMA: Where actually in Slenger? Was it a shebeen or a place of residence, where you drank?

MR NGCOBO: It is a shebeen.

MR MAPOMA: Where was this shebeen? Was it in a hostel or in other houses?

MR NGCOBO: Among the houses.

MR MAPOMA: So, if someone says you were drinking in the hostel actually, is that incorrect?

MR NGCOBO: Incorrect.

MR MAPOMA: Lindau Mkhize’s version is that you were not drinking in the shebeen, but at the hostel actually. Lindau Mkhize, Chairperson.

MR NGCOBO: What I can say is that Lindau came and he found us at the shebeen. He was from Kwampumusa and he wasn't drunk. He got drunk there where we were drinking, but he found me in the shebeen, the very shebeen I'm referring to, not in the hostel.

MR MAPOMA: Who's shebeen was that?

MR NGCOBO: Frans's shebeen, I don't know his last name.

MR MAPOMA: When you were discussing about attacking at the place where you went to attack, was Lindau Mkhize present in those discussions?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, he was.

MR MAPOMA: I will give you what Lindau Mkhize’s version is and I would like a comment on this. He says that you drank at the hostel and thereafter you left with a view to drink at Slenger in a shebeen and that on your way you did not go to Slenger, you decided to go and drink at a place which was the ANC stronghold and that is where he disagreed with you and then he went back and at all, at no stage was the question of attacking discussed. That is his version. What is your comment?

MR NGCOBO: What I can say is that that's a mistake. It's not true because if I remember very well on that day I didn't go to the hostel at all.

MR MAPOMA: Do you confirm that he was not party to the actual attack, Lindau Mkhize?

MR NGCOBO: He knew about it, that we were going to attack, because I did explain here that he was one of the people we left the shebeen with, but then he was too drunk. We told them that those who were too drunk should be left behind, that's when we left them. This is what I know.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo, I understand that as you have said, it troubled you that your brothers were killed and I take it that had your brothers not have been killed, allegedly by the ANC, you would not have made this decision to go and attack on that day, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: This is another thing that tormented me and that's why I came to that decision.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I'm saying had it not been for the fact that your brothers were killed, you would not have gone to attack those people, is that correct?


MR MAPOMA: Thank you, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS LOONAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, is it correct for us to understand that when you attacked ANC members and yes, I'm talking about attacks over the past few years, the pattern that was established was one of not reporting or even relating to your IFP leader, Mr Zuma, before or after the attack, is that how you practised in your area when it came to the political faction fighting? Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MS LOONAT: Who, on different occasions, was the leader or gave instructions to go and attack an ANC stronghold?

MR NGCOBO: Usually there was no person who will say "we must do this", we will take the decision as a group.

MS LOONAT: What then was Mr Zuma's position as the IFP leader in relation to you all in that area?

MR NGCOBO: Are you referring to reports, whether we were reporting to him as to what we had done or what?

MS LOONAT: Anything relating to your attacks on the ANC, what was Mr Zuma's position?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he told us that? That Mr Zuma was opposed to it and would have forbidden any attacks? He gave that evidence earlier, didn't he?

MS LOONAT: I stand to be corrected, but I think Mr Chairman, that generally Mr Zuma didn't take, yes he didn't take an active part in it so, but he was aware, but he was just a figurehead they called a leader, but didn't do anything either way.

ADV DE JAGER: If you went to Mr Zuma and told him "Listen, my brothers have been killed, I want to retaliate, I want to revenge, I want to attack the ANC people because I think they were responsible", what would he have said to you, or what do you believe he would have said to you?

MR NGCOBO: I think he wasn't going to approve that.

MS LOONAT: Did Mr Zuma approve any of your attacks?

MR NGCOBO: He never approved any of the attacks. He never told us to go and attack but we used to attack and sometimes we used to counter attack, but he wouldn't issue any orders or instructions, but these things were happening.

MS LOONAT: You did tell my learned colleague that the standard of your education was up to standard 3. You had no employment. Did you try to get employment is what she was asking?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did try, but I never got one.

MS LOONAT: That's because of the political, the economic climate at that time, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I don't know, maybe it is so. I did look for a job, but I never got one.

MS LOONAT: Mr Ngcobo, you go on to say that the political violence, you agreed with my learned colleague, had subsided somewhat at the time when this attack took place, is that correct?


MS LOONAT: However, you go on to say that there were intermittent attacks and that you acted as you were used to in the past, which means retaliate, is that correct?


MS LOONAT: On the evidence of Mr Lindau Mkhize, you say that he was too drunk to participate on that day, can one assume that he was so drunk that he really, his evidence generally is one that he can't remember very much and so he denies a lot of the association that you were implicated him, would that be correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, it may be so because when we left the shebeen to go to the area where we were going to attack, he was too drunk.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we leave that, perhaps we can go back a little. Mr Ngcobo, Mr Mapoma put to you what he said was Lindau's version. Do you remember that Lindau gave evidence at your trial?


CHAIRPERSON: Where he said that he had met you at the shebeen and he'd been drinking with you at the shebeen?


CHAIRPERSON: And that it was only when the shebeen ran out of drink that you decided to go to a nearby hostel to continue drinking.

MR NGCOBO: You mean go to the hostel?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, remember he said that, but that on the way you and Themba deviated and went to the ANC area and said you were going to attack some people. Do you remember him saying that when he gave evidence?


CHAIRPERSON: And he tried to persuade you not to, telling you that it was a time of peace, but you ignored his comments, so you separated.

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you. Carry on.

MS LOONAT: On the issue of wearing police clothing. You in your mind and you have an education of standard 3, you in your mind were convinced that the policemen in your area were ANC party affiliated, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I am not certain whether they're affiliated with the ANC, but what I know is that they came at home and they killed my brother. That time I did believe that they were aligned with the ANC and we never got to know exactly why he was killed.

ADV SIBANYONI: Is that the reason why you wore the police tracksuit?


ADV DE JAGER: Where did you get this tracksuit from?

MR NGCOBO: It belonged to someone from Slenger.

MS LOONAT: So essentially this police apparel enabled you to slip into the ANC side of your area without being detected too early, is that correct?


MS LOONAT: I have no more question Mr Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: No questions Mr Chairperson.



CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any further witnesses you wish to call?

MS LOONAT: No, no Chairperson, thank you.

MS JELALL: No further witnesses. I will not be calling any witnesses, Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: I'm not calling a witness, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to argue now or would you prefer to take the adjournment and to then deliver your argument? I take it you won't be very long?

MS JELALL: No, Mr Chairperson.

MS LOONAT: No, Mr Chairperson, I won't be very long.

CHAIRPERSON: Well shall we perhaps do it now? Are you ready? Carry on.

MS LOONAT IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members of the Committee, my learned colleague, I wish briefly to bring, on recapping, I wish briefly to bring to the attention of the Committee Members that at the time my client committed this horrendous and callous murder of Mr Majose, he was only 19 years old. His background was evaluated by a social worker who confirmed and it is in the bundle that inter alia he had been deprived of the good influence which a closely knit family should afford him. His single parent mother was the sole supporter of my client and his three brothers, whom as we have heard, were murdered, according to his evidence, by people who were in his mind, he firmly believed were supportive of the ANC party. Mr Majose's political affiliation is confirmed by his wife in an affidavit on page 13 of the bundle. She goes on to confirm further in the 5th line from the bottom that political violence did exist at the time in Slengerspruit.

Unfortunately, sadly, it appeared that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and it would appear that he was not singled out by my client other than that he belonged to the wrong party and that is how he, that is how my client lost his three brothers. They too, it seems, were at the wrong place at the wrong time and it was all to do with the political intolerance that existed at that time.

My client's youth was made more difficult when he chose to leave school in standard 3. Politics became a focal point in his life from the time he left school at the tender age of 14. His peers knew little about politics and their influence in this regard proved detrimental to my client's future. The IFP was the party my client was affiliated with. He has, throughout the hearings, shown instances where he has done acts relating to party politics unlike, in spite of what Mr Zuma has stated. The ANC party was the enemy, as we have established, in my client's mind.

What could he feel at that tender age, if not hatred for the ANC who, in his mind, he firmly believed was responsible for the death of his three brothers.

Donning police apparel, he could not control his overwhelming urge finally that day to revenge the death of his brothers. He dared to take his life in his own hands and he risked and he entered what was well-known to be the ANC side of the are he lived in and he reeked havoc on people he believed to be ANC affiliated. So desperate was he in his purpose to avenge the political onslaught on his family finally that he's applying for amnesty today having conformed with what the Act requires, full disclosure.

Themba Dhlala's firearm was what was used for the shooting. My client subsequently admits that the firearm belonged to him and he emptied the magazine of all 16 of its bullets. Obviously he had to be so enraged by the senseless deaths that he behaved as irrationally as he did. It was not personal revenge.

Client has expressed his deep remorse and apologises profusely to the victims' families. He has spent 7 years in prison and wishes in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, to tell all as far as he could remember and to reach our and discuss each other's political views instead of being intolerant of them. He is now a mature man. He wishes to live in peace and harmony with his neighbours whatever their political beliefs. He wishes to take this opportunity to apologise to his single parent mother who lost him to a prison sentence when she needed him most to fill the void left by the death of three other children.

I humbly submit that the members of the Honourable Committee bear in mind the above personal circumstances of my client and afford him the opportunity to become a useful member of society and grant him the amnesty he seeks. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS JELALL IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee, the applicant himself confirmed that the political violence in this area had subsided at the time when this attack

took place. He further confirmed that his acts were not to the benefit and furtherance of the IFP and that he spoke about the deaths of his brothers and the revenge that he felt, which is also stated in his application, he said revenge for his brothers and for the burning of his house.

ADV DE JAGER: That revenge, would you say it's a personal revenge or is it associated with politics?

MS JELALL: No, it is not associated with politics whatsoever. In my further submissions you will see that it's stated by the applicant's behaviour in itself, the fact that he'd finished school in standard 3, did not get employment, then he goes ahead and he attacks Mr Gadebe on the Friday preceding this attack, it was ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I've got problems with this. Wasn't the whole war in KwaZulu Natal and we can't get away from it that we had a war between two factions. I don't know who did the first killing, but wasn't it a revenge and retaliation since then by one group to the other and we don't know whether they're revenging or whether they're attacking. Altogether it may be that they're revenging yesterday's killing and tomorrow the other side would come back and say well you yesterday attacked us, so we're revenging, well we're attacking. Could he distinguish at that stage whether it was a revenge or whether it was an attack?

MS JELALL: Cognisance has to be taken of the fact that as by the applicant's submission itself, he could not remember when was the attack prior, when the ANC attacked the IFP prior to the 20th October 1991, so therefore it could ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But even today we've got attacks, political attacks carried on on a small scale but we know round about the election in 1994 there was almost a war going on.

MS JELALL: But we also have to keep in mind that in areas like this, they do not leave a large period of time to go before they counter attack. It's that idea, simultaneously or a short while later. So taking into consideration those sets of facts and the fact that he cannot remember, if the applicant on the other hand had said to us, okay an attack was made on the IFP section by the ANC two weeks prior, three weeks prior, and then the IFP attacked, yes, then we could say he remembers it, there is grounds for him actually saying that it was political. Over and above that, if you look at the circumstances of the disguise especially, the question of the police tracksuit comes into question. How would a person come into possession like that? His answer was he got it from somebody from Slenger, but nobody can just come into possession of something like, of some item of clothing like that. Over and above that with Mr Gadebe's version of what happened to him on the night of the 18th, it proves a criminal mind, not a politically motivated, but a criminal mind.

Also further to that, in terms of the Act, Section 20 sub-section 2(b), it is stated in essence that the person applying for amnesty ought to act bona fide for the furtherance of the political party to which he has affiliated himself, but it is the applicant's own submission that there was no, he did not intend to further the cause of the IFP in any way.

It is therefore submitted that in terms of Section 23 sub-section 1 and 2, that this attack was carried out by the applicant for personal circumstances and for his own gain, for revenge, but definitely not for political reasons and it is therefore, it is for these reasons that the victims oppose the application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you help me with this approach to the matter, that we know there was no prior planning of an attack, there was no political purpose at all, we know that a group of young men went to a shebeen and consumed a considerable amount of liquor. The applicant was under the influence of liquor he says, though not very drunk, but they came out of the shebeen and they then decided they were going to attack, but they were at that stage, the majority was in such a state of drunkenness that they were told to go, that only two of the group felt they were sufficiently sober. Could that ever, and something committed in those circumstances, be classified as an act of a political objective? Wasn't this just drunken behaviour by young men?

MS JELALL: Mr Chairperson, I do agree, that is how this act could have been carried out as well. The entire basis is that if it was politically motivated, a state of drunkenness could induce people to act together still and they would have gone together despite their state of drunkenness because even the applicant had also consumed alcohol. Mr Chairperson, it is submitted that that could actually also be the reason, it was just a state of drunkenness.

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Just a few Chairperson.

Mr Chairman, it would appear that this application falls under Section 20 sub-section 2 (a) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act because the applicant was a member or supporter of a political organisation. Now what the Committee is invited to determine is whether this act was an act committed bona fide in the interests, in furtherance of the interest of the Inkatha Freedom Party and my submission, Chair, is that no, because in the circumstances the Inkatha Freedom Party through the person of Shabande Zuma, has distanced itself from this particular action. The applicant himself, in his own words, has confirmed that this act had nothing to do with the IFP, did not further the interests of the IFP. He went on to say that had the IFP leader Mr Zuma knew of this, he would have discouraged them to go on with it. It is my submission therefore, Sir, that in the circumstances, this is an act which cannot be described as an act which was committed bona fide in the furtherance of the interests of the Inkatha Freedom Party.

I want to go on, Chairperson, to refer further to the criteria that are set out in Section 20 sub-section 3 of the Act in determining whether really an act is an act associated with a political objective as defined by this Act. I would invite Chairperson, the Committee to look at the motive for the attack. It is clear, Chair, at this stage and in fact the applicant himself has clarified it, that what bothered him much was to revenge the killing of his brothers and in fact he has confirmed that had his brothers not have been killed, he would not have continued with that act. This, I submit Sir, is a blatant revenge which can not be said to have been intended by the Legislature to fall under the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But suppose a political party, let's assume that for a moment killed my brother, I want to get back at that political part, so I'm killing members of that party.

Would that be only personal revenge or would it be associated with a political motive?

CHAIRPERSON: Well it's got to be for the benefit of your party.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(microphone not on) opposition members.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, not in a situation where the act is not in furtherance of the interests of the political party of yours and further one may need to take into account the political context of course within which this happened. It is common cause that there was a clash between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC in that area but it is important as well to take into account that that political violence has subsided, the applicant himself has confirmed that. Now once you proceed to foment that violence in a situation where there is peace, because your brother ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: It subsided, it didn't stop.

MR MAPOMA: Exactly Chairperson, it subsided, it has not stopped, but it means once in the situation where there's quietness, you proceed. It clearly shows that yours now is nothing else but to revenge, it's no longer politics now.

ADV DE JAGER: I've got problems with that because then somewhere there should be a cut-off point. Nobody committing an act after that date could get amnesty because it's now subsided and if you then kill somebody, you can't get amnesty.

MR MAPOMA: No, it must be looked at against the other aspects of the argument that has been advanced already. It's not just a point in isolation from other aspects, Chair, which have been put forward. It's important that this act has clearly not been an act which has been performed now in furtherance of a political party. The political party itself has distanced itself from it and the applicant himself ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I don't understand, I think that's the main point that the IFP said well "we're not taking responsibility, we didn't order, we don't condone" and he himself said the IFP wouldn't have approved it if they'd approached them.

MR MAPOMA: That may be the position, Chair, I don't intend taking the matter any further except to mention as well that cognisance will have to be taken as well to the gravity of the offence, because this is an act which was committed in a shebeen where people were drinking peacefully. 16 bullets were emptied at people drinking in a shebeen. Now can it be said, for that matter, that you want to revenge against that political party? There are beer drinkers there. Not even a night vigil conducted by the ANC, not even a political rally conducted by the ANC, but mere beer drinkers. That, to a certain extent, puts the question of proportionality in issue again, but I don't intend taking it further Sir, but this is another point which must be taken into account. Thank you, Sir.

MS LOONAT IN REPLY: Just one quick point, Mr Chairperson, on the issue of Section 23. The motive of the person is 3(a). The motive, I just want to, perhaps I'm repeating myself, was, it just so happened to be that it was his three brothers that were murdered by the ANC but had it not been ANC people whom in his mind he was convinced were responsible for their deaths in the circumstances, I don't think that this would have occurred, if I make myself clear.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the problem that I have, that his motive was that his brothers had been killed, not because he thought it would achieve the political aims of the party he supported. Thank you.




















--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are going to hear the application of Vusumusi Rodneg Ngcobo, No 5628/97. The Committee remains the same, but could the legal representatives please put themselves on record?

MR NAIDOO: I'm Pete Naidoo, appearing for the applicant, instructed by the firm Jesak and Jesak.

MR MANZI: My name is Robinson Manzi, from Robinson Manzi and Company, appearing for the victim, Mosesiwe Esther Kunene, Mrs.

MR MAPOMA: Zuko Mapoma, still the Evidence Leader. Thank you.

MR NAIDOO: Mr Chairperson, I just want to clarify the name of the applicant. In some of the papers its reflected as Vusumusi Rodney Ngcobo. I am instructed that his name is Vusumusi Robert Ngcobo.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to call him now?

MR NAIDOO: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.


EXAMINATION BY MR NAIDOO: Mr Ngcobo, before we start with these proceedings, would you tell the members of the Committee, the affidavit that's before them, is that the correct version of the events that transpired, or is there more to what you want to say?

ADV DE JAGER: Are you referring to page?

MR NAIDOO: Member of the Committee, it extends to the entire affidavit and the applicant wants to make certain disclosures in an attempt to curtail the proceedings.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that the affidavit appearing on pages 6 to 7 and the typewritten copy on 4 and 5?

MR NAIDOO: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his reply to the question? Is there anything you want to add, or highlight in the affidavit?

MR NGCOBO: There are things that I would like to mention which were not included in the affidavit. This was because of my state of health and for that of my family's. There is something that I would like to add now which I could not include then because of the fear I had for my family's and for myself.

MR NAIDOO: Would you continue.

MR NGCOBO: I would like to be able to explain everything that happened with regard to this incident.

MR NAIDOO: Let us commence with informing the members of the Committee. What is your age?

MR NGCOBO: I was 24 years old.

MR NAIDOO: Was that at the time of the commission of the offence?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, at that time.

MR NAIDOO: What is your current political affiliation?


MR NAIDOO: And what proof do you have of your membership with the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I have, that is my membership card.

MR NAIDOO: Can you read your membership number out to the members of the Committee.

MR NGCOBO: 69249. It was issued on the 27th May 1993.

MR NAIDOO: When did you actually join the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: I joined the ANC when it was still in the form of the UDF, in the eighties.

MR NAIDOO: And when the ANC was unbanned, did the then UDF become part of the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MR NAIDOO: What position did you hold in the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: At the time when the ANC was still banned, around 1986, I joined the UDF. In 1990 when the ANC was unbanned I became a Chief Martial, responsible for safeguarding the members as well as guarding when there were rallies or protest marches and to make sure that that area was safe.

MR NAIDOO: Did you receive any training by the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: I received training in the country in 1993, that was MK training.

MR NAIDOO: Where specifically did you receive this training?

MR NGCOBO: At KwaMashu?

MR NAIDOO: Now a person by the name of Mliko Sarakombe is mentioned in your affidavit. Can you tell the Committee who he was?

MR NGCOBO: This was the person who was in charge of this transition camp, he trained us in defending ourselves against opponents which were the IFP, SAP and SANDF.

MR NAIDOO: And was Mr Sarakombe subsequently killed?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, he was killed by the ZP.

MR NAIDOO: When was he killed?

MR NGCOBO: We were on our way back from the Sonke Festival, it was on a Monday, I think it was in October 1993.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you present when he was killed?

MR NGCOBO: I was absent.

ADV DE JAGER: So you said you were on your way, or he was on his way from?

MR NGCOBO: The Sunday preceding the day that he was killed, he had been at the Sonke Festival, as ANC security personnel.

MR NAIDOO: Did you know Mr Kunene, the deceased, prior to his death?

MR NGCOBO: No, I did not.

MR NAIDOO: Why was Mr Kunene killed?

MR NGCOBO: After the death of Mliko, there was a message that came from the Commanders that it was alleged that he had been involved in the death of Mliko, specifically that he had given information to the police as to Mliko's whereabouts, because at that time the police did not have an easy time finding people in the township because we used to assist one another and it was alleged that he had been involved in giving information to the police.

MR NAIDOO: How did this information come to be relayed to yourself?

MR NGCOBO: I received information from the Commanders on the day on which I had been collecting some money, contributions towards Mliko's funeral. As I arrived at home I got a message that some comrades had been looking for me and they had left a message that I should proceed to Bekilanga on my arrival. As I arrived there, that was a spot where we usually had our training and I found that the other Commanders were looking for me and I was informed that the instructors were looking for me. When I got there I found people like Nduna Gemba and Mbonesene who told me that they had received information from the Security Section that someone has been involved in giving information to the police. It was explained to me that this person had joined the police as an informer in 1986 and his house was at some point burned, so they had found out that this person had been involved in the death of Mliko. Moreover there were other ANC members who were still going to be killed as well as MK members, as SDU members. I was then given a gun and told that we should go to the Kunene household to kill Bongane.

ADV DE JAGER: Who gave you that order?

MR NGCOBO: Commander Nduna Mapomolo.

MR NAIDOO: Was he your superior officer?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that's correct.

MR NAIDOO: What was your role in the killing?

MR NGCOBO: My role was to go out and kill as well as use that as a learning experience, because it was my first mission and I was going to receive instruction from my Commanders, or the people that I was with, how to go about it. I was given an instruction that when we get there, I would also shoot.

MR NAIDOO: Who was to accompany you on this mission?

MR NGCOBO: It was myself, Nduna, Mbonesene, Gemba and Mtu.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the names slowly so that we can get it down. It was yourself, Nduna.

MR NGCOBO: Myself, Nduna, Mbonesene, Gemba and Mtu.

ADV DE JAGER: The last name? Mtu?


MR NAIDOO: After receiving these instructions, what did you do?

MR NGCOBO: Mtu and Gemba went ahead first, particularly Mtu had to check as to who was present at the Kunene household. Mtu then took a certain girl by the name of Nomtandaza, whom he said he was going to use to check whether Bongane had a firearm or not. He thereafter left with that girl and Gemba. After about 15 minutes they returned and informed us that yes, he was present and indeed he had a firearm, therefore we, we should go and attack. I was informed that we should not use a lot of ammunition because we were not aware, we did not know just how many people were there who could assist him.

ADV DE JAGER: Please, could you ask him to speak sentence wise. It's got to be translated. Give the translator chance to translate it and so that we can get it down too.

MR NAIDOO: Mr Ngcobo, would you go a little slower and take it at one step at a time?

MR NGCOBO: Yes. Mtu went ahead first and he had to check who was present at the house. This they did and they returned and the three of us, myself, Mbonesene and Nduna were the people who were going to partake in the shooting of Mr Kunene.

ADV DE JAGER: The three of you, after they returned, the three of you, it was yourself and who?

MR NGCOBO: Mbonesene and Nduna.

CHAIRPERSON: Nduna or Gemba?

MR NGCOBO: It was Nduna and Mbonesene. Gemba was around, but I'm not sure what he was doing at that stage.

MR NAIDOO: Just to get clarity. Was it Mtu and Gemba who went to the home first together with the girl?

MR NGCOBO: Yes. They went to check, but Gemba was just accompanying Mtu so that he safeguards him, but Mtu was the person who was supposed to go into the house and do the checking.

MR NAIDOO: Did both members return to the balance of the group?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, they did.

MR NAIDOO: Then what transpired?

MR NGCOBO: Thereafter Nduna issued an order that as a person who had been trained, I should take care that none of our members are shot at. I should make sure that we shoot him. So what I was supposed to do was, I was not going to be the first to fire a shot, because they were better trained than I was, they were the people who were going to fire first. Thereafter we left and as we got there I was placed in a position, so were the other two people. I saw Bongane going up and down the yard and Nduna therefore after that approached. He had drawn his firearm and he insulted him and called him an informer, telling him that he has betrayed a lot of people. Bongane also drew his firearm but there were no shots that were fired. As he was still attending to Nduna,

ADV DE JAGER: Was he still in the house? Where was he, the deceased at that stage?

MR NGCOBO: He was in the yard.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he alone?

MR NGCOBO: There were some people who were around, but I could not tell who they were.

ADV DE JAGER: Standing with him, or standing in the street, or where?

MR NGCOBO: They were inside the house because as this happened, some people ran into the house.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but if they ran into the house they must have been outside at a stage. Were they standing with him in the yard and did they run into the house when you approached, or what happened?

MR NGCOBO: I would say they were outside and when Nduna approached carrying a firearm, they ran inside because Nduna was known. From their conduct, their running inside the house, I assumed that they must have known Nduna, who he was.

MR NAIDOO: Please continue.

MR NGCOBO: Gemba and Mtu were somewhere hiding, I could not tell exactly where they were positioned but Mbonesene was close to me. As Bongane was still talking, arguing with Nduna, Nduna was telling him that, "do you think that you're going to have all of us killed as you are betraying MK members", and they were arguing about this and Eric was denying this, defending himself. At the time that they were talking, Mbonesene fired two shots in Bongane's direction.

MR NAIDOO: Did any of the shots injure the victim?

MR NGCOBO: I think yes they did because as he fired and as Bongane turned, he fired and Nduna also shot and Bongane realised that there were more people and he tried to flee and he ran towards the car and at that time I also fired. He ran towards the vehicle and I could see that he was seriously injured from the way that he ran and as he got into the car Nduna fired as well as myself.

MR NAIDOO: Okay. Just take it slowly. From the time you said that Mr Kunene ran to the motor vehicle, could you tell us what happened?

MR NGCOBO: They had exchanged gunshots with Mbonesene because Mbonesene crept up behind him as he was still talking to Nduna and after Mbonesene fired, Bongane fired a shot and it hit Mbonesene on the leg and I could see that Bongane was also injured because when he fired, Nduna had also fired his gun. He started running towards the car next to where I was positioned. I also fired two shots as he was running into the vehicle.

MR NAIDOO: Did any of your shots injure the victim?

MR NGCOBO: I think so because he was not very far from me. I was in a concealed position and he was approaching towards me, running towards the car.

MR NAIDOO: What happened then after that?

MR NGCOBO: Nduna fired towards the car, at the back of the car, as well as myself and Mbonesene. Nduna then ordered us to stop. He approached Bongane and he finished him off by shooting him on the head and then he removed his firearm from him.

MR NAIDOO: Whilst he was removing the firearm, what were you doing?

MR NGCOBO: At that time we were standing. We were in a position of waiting, guarding, against whoever might come or approach.

MR NAIDOO: After the victim was shot in his head, what happened, and after the firearm was removed?

MR NGCOBO: We left the scene. I was ordered to walk in front and they followed me.

MR NAIDOO: Where did you all go to?

MR NGCOBO: We approached the route to Zake, to Mliko's house. After this incident we met up with Mtu and Gemba and I realised that they must have been hiding nearby and Mtu had a big gun, I was not sure whether it was an R5 or an R4. I do not know whether they had gotten it from Bongane's car or from his home, I'm not certain. We then proceeded towards Mliko's home where there was a memorial service for Mliko.

MR NAIDOO: Were Mtu and Gemba involved in the shooting of Mr Kunene?

MR NGCOBO: I cannot say it with certainty because there was a lot of gun shots going off, but from what I could surmise they must have been the security of our operation because ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But they were involved in the whole planning and they were part of the group transpiring to kill him.

MR NGCOBO: Yes, they were present.

MR NAIDOO: The firearm of the deceased, did you retain possession of the firearm?

MR NGCOBO: It was retained by Nduna.

MR NAIDOO: When were you arrested?

MR NGCOBO: I think it was around 4 or 5, because I remember we were watching boxing on TV, I was with Sanzel at F Section.

MR NAIDOO: How many days after the incident were you arrested?

MR NGCOBO: Although I cannot be sure, but I think a week elapsed, I think it was about on a Monday after the death of Mr Bongane.

MR NAIDOO: The other members that were involved in this conspiracy, where are they today?

MR NGCOBO: Some are late, like Gemba, he died at a robbery scene in Newlands East. Nduna was killed by the police, who attacked him at night. Mbonesene is still alive, although I do not know where he is. Mtu was also killed in a robbery. I think most of them, when they left their training, their MK training, they didn't have employment and they got involved in crime.

MR NAIDOO: Now was Mr Nduna a senior member of the ANC at the time that you received this instruction?

MR NGCOBO: He was in a senior position in MK. I think he was a senior person in MK.

MR NAIDOO: Did you have any personal grudge against the deceased?

MR NGCOBO: No, I did not. It was because of the instruction that I received to go and kill him.

MR NAIDOO: And were your actions purely politically motivated?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What was your motive? What did you try to achieve? Or did you kill him out of revenge because he'd killed, or betrayed a party member?

MR NGCOBO: I did have that, that I was keen that I would kill or shoot somebody who had been involved or implicated in the death of Mliko.

MR NAIDOO: Was that your only objective in killing, in participating in this death of Mr Kunene?


MR NAIDOO: Now you mentioned something about Mr Kunene's house being burned in 1987, where did you get that information from?

MR NGCOBO: I received that information from the Commanders that Mr Kunene was a troublesome person around that time in 1987, that is why his house was burned.

MR NAIDOO: Do you know who burned his house?

MR NGCOBO: I just know that it was the comrades.

MR NAIDOO: Is there anything else that you would like to say to the members of the Committee?

MR NGCOBO: Yes. I will say that with regards to the situation under which we operated when we were struggling and fighting against the apartheid regime, this government used certain people to kill those of us who were fighting, therefore you found that there was black on black violence, which was perpetrated by the same government. Even though they initiated negotiations, they still continued with the strategy of having people killed, for instance people like Chris Hani were killed in the midst of negotiations and in my case I was trying to protect the community of my area, that is the Besta area. I was prepared to take those actions that would contribute to the liberation of our people, and I will say Mr Kunene's death was a result of the situation that existed in South Africa, that he was used as an informer to kill us and we were therefore forced into a situation where we had to kill people, not because we loved to do so, but because we had to protect that cause.

Therefore I would like to apologise to Mrs Kunene. Today she is a widow, she does not have her husband to take care of her because of our action. The reason that I'm in prison is because of that crime, but I did this to defend the community of KwaMashu and the entire South Africa. I apologise for killing Mr Bongane Kunene in the manner in which we did. I ask them to forgive me. I do not have a personal grudge against them, just as much as I did not have any grudge against Mr Bongane, it was because of the political circumstances at the time. I will appeal to them to accept me and reconcile with me, particularly in this process of the TRC. I am determined to do the best I can to assist them, for instance if I were to get a job, I could contribute something to their family, because even myself, I have lost something, my family suffers because of my incarceration. I have children, two children. I have matured and I have turned over a new leaf now that I am in prison. I will appeal to them to forgive me, I am remorseful. Thank you.

MR NAIDOO: Mr Chairperson, I have finished leading the applicant.


CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examination?

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MANZI: Mr Ngcobo, Sir, you are telling this Commission that you were a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MR MANZI: For you to be member of Umkhonto weSizwe did not necessarily mean that you were a member of the ANC, are you aware of that?

MR NGCOBO: They are part of the same thing. The ANC is a political organisation and MK is a military wing of the ANC. They protect the ANC.

MR MANZI: I think you did not understand my question. My question to you is that, do you know that to be a member of Umkhonto weSizwe does not necessarily mean that you are a member of the ANC? I'll give you an example. For instance you can be a member of Umkhonto weSizwe but being a member of the South African Communist Party. Do you know that?

MR NGCOBO: I do not, I hear for the first time. I always understood this to be part of the same thing.

MR MANZI: I see. Also further, you could be a member of Umkhonto weSizwe and be a member of SACTU, South African Congress of Trade Unions, which was based in Lusaka, without being a member of the ANC. You are not aware of that as well?

MR NGCOBO: As I mentioned before, there is my ANC card. If that is the case, where would I have gotten this card, if I was not a member of the ANC?

MR MANZI: Yes, those cards were available in many places and many people obtained them, even ANC abandoned the use of those cards simply because people were using them fraudulently. Don't you know that?

MR NGCOBO: I would like to produce some documents which will explain, if the Committee allows me. I have some papers here.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I just want clarity. Are you disputing that he was a member of the ANC at the time?

MR MANZI: Yes. My line of cross-examination, Mr Chairman, is to explain, to expose the fact that he was not sent by either the ANC or Umkhonto weSizwe to commit the crime, he was doing it because he was part of a group of gangsters that was operational in that area.

ADV DE JAGER: So you say that he wasn't instructed by the ANC, they were a group of gangsters operating in that area?

MR MANZI: Exactly, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

MR NGCOBO: I would like to produce some papers which indicate the type of person I am. Thereafter he can tell me if I am the criminal he alleges me to be. I would like the Committee to have sight of these papers, just what is contained therein about me.

ADV DE JAGER: You've heard what the learned legal representative put to me. He says he'll contend that you were part of a gang and that you didn't operate on this occasion on the instructions of MK or of the ANC. What's your response thereto?

MR NGCOBO: I will dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you seen these papers?

MR MANZI: I've had sight of them, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll perhaps place on record what he has handed in before I pass them around. The first is a letter with a post box address and a date, the 21st September 1995,

"Sir/Madam, Robert Vusumusi Ngcobo, he lives at Besta Camp under Peter Makaba branch. He is a full member of African National Congress. He was working under the structure of community. He was a martial and he was on the cabinet as civic"

And it's signed by the Chairperson, it appears to be P M Majaba and the secretary, J M Buthelezi and there's a stamp of ANC Peter Makaba. The second letter is one with a letterhead Besta Civic Association, giving an address, postal box in Durban, telephone number and they are both hand-written in ink. This one says:

"To whom it may concern. This serves to confirm that Comrade Vusumusi Robert Ngcobo resides at Area 1, House no 1, 1151, since 1986. He has been one of the civic structures at the umbrella level as an organiser. He played a very big role in our community and to the development.

We as the community leaders are requesting a grace, hoping that our request will reach your favourable consideration. Thanking you"

and signed by Mr Lawrence Mutiane, Secretary, dated the 22nd September 1995.

MR NAIDOO: Mr Chairperson, there is one more document.

CHAIRPERSON: The last document is a printed document headed:

"Identification of the Certified Personnel Register"

and it seems to have, I say seems because the lettering is very dim, I can hardly read it, it seems to have the surname Ngcobo, full names Vusi and it is stamped Natal Command. I hand that to you. Perhaps these should be numbered A, B and C. If you could put that on please. A will be the first one.

MR NAIDOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: The first one is the one from the Makaba ANC branch, then the number 2 is the Civic one and number three is the one from the Commander.

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman, they are so marked.

MR NGCOBO: ...(not interpreted)

MR MAPOMA: Okay you will get them later on Mr Ngcobo, don't worry about that. We'll make sure that we give them to your attorney very soon.

MR NGCOBO: I would like to have them returned now because I just wanted you to have sight of them.

ADV DE JAGER: We'll see to it. They've been handed in, they're in our possession now and maybe we'll decide to give them back to your attorney, but you can't demand it back at this stage.

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now as you claim to have been a member of the ANC and a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, were you working under any political Commissar of the ANC?

MR NGCOBO: As I explained before, when the MK started operating inside, we were still training so that we are able to protect the community. This was a legal venture, there had been an instruction and authority to do this. The Commander is instructed to appoint people, responsible people, who would be trained as SDU members. I am one of the people who requested a letter from the Besta community, Civic community, recommending me for their training, that I was a responsible person who would be able to protect that community. You would have not been able to join that programme if you were not a member of the organisation because it was decided that the people who were going to be trained were to be members, just in case they train people who were not members, who would receive the training and would thereafter go and carry out attacks somewhere.

MR MANZI: Mr Ngcobo, the African National Congress was not training the killing machines, it was training people for a particular purpose, to achieve that purpose the ANC put up the structures such as political Commissar to teach their trainees as to what were the aims and objectives of the ANC. Do you know that?

MR NGCOBO: I would agree with you that the ANC was not opening the flood gates of killing machines, that is not how it happened. I am an ANC member. I was not instructed to go out and kill anyhow but I was trained to defend people from attacks, Inkatha and ZP attacks. This is what we were experiencing daily. People like Harry Gwala told us that we should train so that we are able to defend ourselves, not that we were going to be killing machines, no this is not how it happened.

MR MANZI: And that teaching was done in every structure, no matter how small it was, by a political Commissar and my question is, who was your political Commissar?

MR NGCOBO: The instructor was Mliko and Commander Bazuga was responsible for our political education.

MR MANZI: Did Bazuga on this day tell you to go and kill Mr Bongane Eric Kunene?

MR NGCOBO: Bazuga was present when the plan to kill Bongane was discussed. He was present when this matter was discussed.

MR MANZI: Did Bazuga tell you how Mr Bongane Kunene was going to be killed?

MR NGCOBO: He produced the firearm, giving it to Gemba.

MR MANZI: Okay. Having given the firearm to Gemba did he tell you how he was going to be killed?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, he said "Vusi, when you go out, you must ensure that whatever happens on this thing you must observe, because we may die at any time and after our death you are going to be the people who will be responsible for protecting the people, so you should go and learn from then what happens to informers, how they are killed."

MR MANZI: I see. Did he tell you how Mr Kunene was going to be killed? The plan, in other words, that would lead to the death of Mr Kunene?

MR NGCOBO: Maybe you did not understand how the military system works. Maybe you are not aware how things operated in MK, you are putting that position because you are a lawyer. Bazuga would have not produced a firearm and given me instructions that I should go with them, he would have not issued such instructions if he did not want this person killed, therefore all the instructors were in favour of this act.

MR MANZI: Yes, he wanted him killed to revenge the death of Mliko, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MR MANZI: I will repeat this so that you do not say at a later stage you made a mistake, because my questions are not intended to catch you, do you understand that? Do you understand that?


MR MANZI: Alright. He wanted Mr Bongane Eric Kunene killed to revenge the death of Mliko. Are you saying yes?


MR MANZI: You yourself, did not have any evidence whatsoever that Mr Bongane Eric Kunene was an informer, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Everything that I was told by the Commanders I regarded as truth because they, in their teachings, emphasised that we should always receive orders from them because they also receive their own orders, I do not know wherefrom, but they also received orders.

MR MANZI: And as you were from Besta squatter area, you knew of innocent people that were dying in the nearby squatter camp called Bambai, black on black violence, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I knew that the people of Bambai were being attacked by police hit squads.

MR MANZI: Yes, but many of innocent people were dying there, those who were alleged to be informers only to find at a later stage that they were not informers, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I do not know about that, I was not a resident of Bambai.

MR MANZI: Now also as you were from Besta squatter camp you knew of the nearby area Lindelani, where many innocent people were being killed by black people under the pretext of black on black violence, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I heard about that but I did not reside at Lindelani.

MR MANZI: And in your teachings, as you claim to have been a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, you were told that innocent lives must be protected at all cost. You do not have to kill an innocent person as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: You are telling me what you know and I am telling you what I know. Yes, we were taught to protect people if they are being attacked by hit squads, IFP hit squads or if they're just being attacked. It was our duty to protect them if they were being attacked. That was my duty and I did this.

MR MANZI: And the enemy at that time was the high white oppressive government, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Yes and Mr Bongane Eric Kunene was not a white person, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Please repeat that.

MR MANZI: Mr Bongane Eric Kunene was not a white person, he fell in the category of the people that were supposed to be protected by Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR NGCOBO: I would like to ask, were the ZPs who were killing black people not black and we have seen some of them before the TRC, the other people who have been killing black people, were they also not black? The apartheid regime made it possible that black people attack other black people.

MR MANZI: Yes, as much as that was the case, you had to attack a ZP simply because you identified him as a ZP, but in this case you had no identification of Bongane Eric Kunene, either as a ZP or as a member of the SAP, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: I dispute that. We had information that he was an informer who worked in collaboration with the police in the township. We knew what the situation was in the township. The Commanders had their Security and Intelligence sections which collected information as to the goings on in the township. Even when we were attacked, we would receive that information that we are going to be attacked by such-and-such people.

MR MANZI: Okay. We will come back later to that, but let's come back to this. You were angry when you heard of the death of Mliko, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: During those days, yes, I was angry.

MR MANZI: And it was that anger that drove you to revenge against Mr Bongane Eric Kunene, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: There were over 600 people present and all of them were angry when Mliko died, I was also angry, but I did not request, I did not go to them and tell them that I should be appointed to go and kill Mr Kunene, they out of their own volition, appointed me, they ordered me to go and kill that man.

MR MANZI: To revenge.


ADV DE JAGER: Isn't his grace that he acted on the orders and he obeyed the order, would it then be a prerequisite for amnesty that he himself should have a certain opinion, but if he, in contrast to he believed what his Commanders told him was the correct position and he acted bona fide on what they told him.

MR MANZI: Yes, Mr Chairman, if that was the case, if he acted bona fide, but in this case as the questions are going to unearth at a later stage, that there was no bona fide belief that Mr Kunene was an informer, it was just a rumour as it could have gone against me, just in the township and it could have gone against anyone. That is not, the Act says that it must be a political motivation and of course, if that command was a genuine command, it will fall within that category, but this was not a genuine command and the cross-examination as it develops, it's going to show that it was not that.

ADV DE JAGER: But does this mean, Mr ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR MANZI: Manzi.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Manzi, ...(indistinct- mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm referring to Mr, I think you pronounce it Bazuga, he's not one of the people previously mentioned, he's not one of the 5, so he's a separate person?


ADV DE JAGER: We know what happened to the others.


ADV DE JAGER: We don't know what's his position? Is he still alive?

MR MANZI: I'm going to find that out.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, you see, I don't think he's been mentioned previously, so our staff couldn't give him notice of this hearing and he's now implicated because I think the witness said he was at the planning and we must keep that in mind as far as the Committee is concerned, so we would like, if you could find out whether he is still alive or where we could find him.

MR MANZI: I'll try and get it from the witness. Now, Mr Ngcobo, my instructions are that before the killing of Mr Kunene, a girl came running into Mr Kunene's yard, being chased by a boy who was then confronted by the son of the deceased, What do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: I will not be able to comment on that, but I heard the Commander Mtu saying that they had used a certain girl to find out if Bongane was present, but I cannot really comment on the girl because I was not present.

MR MANZI: You were part of the dangerous mission, the conspiracy to murder Mr Bongane Kunene. Are you telling us that part of the information with regard to the actual commission or execution of the mission, was concealed or was not known to you, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he said, they went off first to find out if he was there? They came back and told us. Do you expect him to say "well, we're going to go and knock on the door and look through the window" and tell every detail? Surely it's sufficient if they simply say we are going to go?

MR MANZI: Yes, Mr Chairman, but in this case the statement of the witness himself speaks of the girl called Nomtandaza. That is what I'm trying to establish from the witness, whether he knew of the plan of Nomtandaza. Did you know of that plan, that Nomtandaza was going to be sent first?

MR NGCOBO: I heard, but not the full details.

MR MANZI: Were you there when Nomtandaza ran into the house of the deceased?

MR NGCOBO: I was not present.

MR MANZI: Well, my instructions are that the death of the deceased was because of his intervention in the Nomtandaza saga, that is when Nomtandaza was threatened by a male who was chasing her, who in fact drew a gun in the yard of the deceased.

MR NGCOBO: Yes, that maybe what you heard but that was the trap that was sent to reveal whether he had a firearm. As I've mentioned before, I heard about it but I was not given the full details.

MR MANZI: But when the deceased was shot at, you were in front of other people that were shooting the deceased, were you not?

MR NGCOBO: We had positioned ourselves at different spots, Nduna I was in front, I was not.

MR MANZI: How far were you from the motor vehicle, the car of the deceased?

MR NGCOBO: It would be from the distance where you are seated and I would be behind that curtain and he would have passed that spot where I was positioned on his way to the vehicle.

MR MANZI: You see it was a question of 5 minutes, between 15 minutes and, 5 to 15 minutes, that the girl approached the house of the deceased and then that man went away. He came back to confront the accused 15 minutes later, what would you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: I only learned about his presence at his home when we received that report that yes indeed, he was present and we could proceed with the attack.

MR MANZI: Did you attack him whilst he was within his yard at his house, or when he was in the car on the road?

MR NGCOBO: The whole scuffle started inside the premises because he was arguing with Nduna who was telling him that he was not going to be able to finish off everybody in the MK and Eric was talking to him about this and as he was doing so, Mbonesene started firing. Bongane fired back and then Nduna shot at him as well. That was when he started running from the yard to his vehicle and he was going to pass the spot where I had hidden myself and at that point I also shot him and he got into the vehicle thereafter.

MR MANZI: That is not true, the deceased was shot at while he was seated in his motor vehicle. He was not shot at in the yard. He was not shot at in the house, he was shot at in his motor vehicle. That is why his motor vehicle was riddled with bullets.

MR NGCOBO: I was present at the scene and I'm explaining what happened at that scene.

MR MANZI: Do you know that Gemba as you have said if I'm not mistaken, died in a robbery shoot-out?

MR NGCOBO: That is what I heard.

MR MANZI: Gemba is the same person that you say was the Commander?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Nduna also died in Chesterville in a robbery, do you know that?

MR NGCOBO: No, he was killed by the police. Where would he have robbed in Chesterville?

MR MANZI: The other motive of killing, that is Mr Kunene, was to rob him of his firearm, what do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: That is not so. From what I know, that is not so.

MR MANZI: From what you know from whom?

MR NGCOBO: From the Commanders. He had been involved, he had had a role in the killing of Mliko. People who had been trained, received military training, would not have just accused him of something that he had not done, they just want to kill him. Why would they want to kill him?

MR MANZI: Were you told perhaps as to how Mr Kunene passed information from whatever quarters to ZP, to KwaZulu Government Police, or to members of the SAP, that is South African Police, then?

MR NGCOBO: Mr Bongane did not work alone in this department. As I mentioned before he couldn't communicated with the police. From the information that we had, Bongane did not work alone but he was involved in a covert operation. If you looked at him, you would just see a normal innocent person, but he was not that innocent because in general after the death of Bongane, we discovered that there was someone, just as someone who had a video camera which he used to take our training. The KwaZulu Government wanted to know why people were being trained therefore they would use innocent people to obtain such information. That Justice was one of the people who'd use a video camera to tape our training and unfortunately he was caught and that video camera was removed from him and the tape was taken to senior people in the organisation. I'm just trying to explain that yes, the government would use people, even people like yourself, an attorney, you would be used as an informer so as an attorney you may tell me that he was an innocent person as you described him, but from the information that we had, we knew that he was involved in the death of Mliko and even in 1986 his house was burned down because of that information that he was an informer.

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Ngcobo. I understand your position and you problem, but you see today the Chair over there, the family and all of us want to know the information that you're talking about, what information did you have to justify the killing of Mr Kunene? Not only that, don't tell us about the rumour that he was an informer, but concrete information, did you have any? This is what the Chair wants to know, this is what we want to know, this is what the family wants to know.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, he's already said that he had no information, he personally had no information whatsoever, he relied on what he was told by his Commanders.

MR MANZI: It then, Mr Ngcobo, you relied on what you were told by your Commanders, are you telling this house that you would believe whatever you were told by those you claim to be Commanders?

MR NGCOBO: As you say, yes, everything that they informed me of, I'd believe them, because they had been authorised by senior people in MK to train us. They would have not been given such powers if they were not reliable. When I went wanting to join, I went to the offices and I was given forms to fill and I was directed to them because they were the people who were going to be responsible for training. In fact I wanted to receive my training outside the country but because of the fact that the arms struggle had been suspended I could not do so, so all the information that I received, everything I got from there and we did so, we worked together trusting one another.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just help me for a moment? You made an affidavit on the 16th November last year in Westville prison. Was it when you were approached by the investigator of the TRC?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did make an affidavit, although I was not satisfied with it, I had been coming from the gym and I discovered that some people were looking for me.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm not asking you a long question, I've asked you whether you've made an affidavit, I don't want to know whether you came from the gym or where you went to. Could you look at page 4, please?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did make an affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know Nomtandaza?

MR NGCOBO: I would not say that I know her because I used to see her from afar.

ADV DE JAGER: But you knew her name at least?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I do.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you under the impression that she was in love with one of the Commanders?

MR NGCOBO: It is possible but I cannot say it with certainty.

ADV DE JAGER: Well you stated that in your affidavit: "To me she appeared to be in love with one of the Commanders."

MR NGCOBO: I would not comment fully.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you further said:

"She was in front and they were following her. Since I was an escort, I was in the back taking charge of the situation."

Is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did say it.

ADV DE JAGER: So you saw her walking to the deceased's house?

MR NGCOBO: From where I was, yes I could see them.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you said:

"She knocked at that house."

So did you observe her knocking at the door?

MR NGCOBO: When she turned the corner I could not see her thereafter.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you hear her screaming?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, I did hear her scream.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you said in your affidavit too,

"She knocked at the house"

I see in the original it's that house and not her house. "... and she screamed".

MR NGCOBO: I heard her screams, that is what I heard.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you continued to say:

"When the owner of the house whom it is believed was Mr Kunene, opened the door and that is when he was shot at by these three."

Now could you tell us, he opened the door, he was shot at by these three after she knocked. Who were the three who shot him?

MR NGCOBO: As I mentioned earlier, I did indicate that there are things that where not written as they should have been in the affidavit.

ADV DE JAGER: Who took this affidavit down?

MR NGCOBO: A certain woman.

ADV DE JAGER: You were not afraid to tell her the truth because she'd been connected with the TRC?

MR NGCOBO: I thought that I would be called to give the true version of events as is happening today. I was not in a position to tell her the whole truth.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you tell her that he was shot at by the other three and you didn't mention that you shot at all? Why didn't you mention it that he was shot at in the car?

MR NGCOBO: As I've already mentioned, I assumed that I was going to divulge all the details here because I was afraid if I spoke then, this information may leak out.

ADV DE JAGER: So you were prepared to tell a lie at that stage? Two months ago, 6 months ago, to the TRC?

MR NGCOBO: Not that I was prepared to, but I was afraid because when she said she came from the TRC I was not sure whether she was a detective or a police officer and it could be that that information would be leaked and my family would be harmed, but as I say, most of what is contained in the affidavit was not the true version. I am recounting the true story as it happened now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngcobo, you had been tried and convicted, hadn't you?


CHAIRPERSON: And you had heard the people give evidence at your trial?

MR NGCOBO: Yes, although it's been a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had heard the deceased's wife giving evidence about how he was shot and how she was sitting in the car at the time.

MR NGCOBO: I cannot recall. There were a lot of statements that were made. She made a lot of statements. She put different versions or statements in court, I cannot recall whether she specifically mentioned that they were in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: But I find this a little difficult to understand and the Judge had no hesitation in accepting her evidence and the evidence of her daughter, who spoke about how the shooting took place in the car. You heard that evidence didn't you?

MR NGCOBO: Yes. She did mention that and she also mentioned that she was in the house, inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: The daughter said that, not the wife. But this had all come out in 1995, why do you now say you couldn't put it in your affidavit which you made in 1998 because it might leak out?

MR NGCOBO: The investigator did not ask me on the other issues, she just inquired about what I wrote, or what I told her in that affidavit and with regards to his wife being in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell her the truth? You started off your affidavit saying:

"I wish to state that all the information contained in the police docket as well as in the court records, are not true. The true facts are as follows."

And then you set out a version that makes no mention of the deceased being in the car, being shot at in the car or anything about it. You say here, as my colleague has ...(indistinct), that he was shot at by these three as he opened the door of his house. Why did you give that version Mr Ngcobo?

MR NGCOBO: A long time has elapsed, I cannot recall what is in there or not in there. Even that investigator did not read that statement back to me.

ADV DE JAGER: And you continue to say:

"I don't know whether they took the firearm or not because I was on the look-out for the people who might interfere."

Here you said you don't know whether they've taken the firearm. Today you told us they took the firearm.

MR NGCOBO: Yes, they did take the firearm. It is not that at that time I was intent on lying, but the way in which she arrived and what happened I was in a bit of fear and even my state of health was not right.

ADV DE JAGER: One is not lying if your state of health is not right because then you may die with a lie on your lips. When you're about to die, you'll speak the truth.

MR NGCOBO: It is not that those were lies, but there were mistakes that were made, but as I have mentioned before, I was not in a right frame of mind, I could not have told her to return some other day to take the statement as she wanted it there and then.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm sorry for interrupting.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR MANZI: Mr Ngcobo, in conclusion I'll put it to you that your killing of Mr Kunene was not motivated by any political, there was no political motivation whatsoever but it was a revenge attack as you have stated, two, it was aimed at robbing the deceased of his firearm.

MR NGCOBO: I dispute that.

MR MANZI: No further questions.


MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo, did your co-perpetrators know Nomtandaza?

MR NGCOBO: I think so, from what they told me.

MR MAPOMA: Who appeared amongst the co-perpetrators, who appeared to be in love with Nomtandaza?

MR NGCOBO: There were several Commanders, but I cannot be certain as to who was in love with Nomtandaza, because these two, romantic life and military life were very separate. Even if I could suspect or from what I saw, suspect that there might be a relationship going on, I was not in a position to ask.

MR MAPOMA: And is it your evidence as well that Nomtandaza ran into the yard of Mr Kunene as, being chased

by one of your co-perpetrators?

MR NGCOBO: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Why was she being chased and assaulted?

MR NGCOBO: I was told that they were going to use her to find out if Mr Bongane is present and who else is also with him and when this took place, the actual chasing of Nomtandaza, I was not there, but I was informed that Nomtandaza would be used to find that information.

MR MAPOMA: But the evidence is that Nomtandaza was being assaulted, she fell and she woke up being assaulted. Do you dispute that?

MR NGCOBO: I would not dispute it.

MR MAPOMA: Do you still maintain it is possible that it was a trap, when somebody gets assaulted and being chased, falling and waking up, can that be a trap?

MR NGCOBO: I do not know what happened after they turned the corner. I could hear her screaming. I cannot explain everything that happened. The last time I saw them was when they turned. I heard her scream but I cannot say what happened there, because the houses are positioned in such a way that you are not able to see everything that happens in another house.

MR MAPOMA: For your information Mr Ngcobo, Nomtandaza was interviewed by the TRC investigator and in the report that we received is that Nomtandaza denied any knowledge of you and your co-perpetrators. What do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: As I said before, I would agree with her if she says she does not know me personally because I do not reside at L section, I resided at Besta. She may be telling the truth that she doesn't know me and it is quite a distance from L section to Besta. She would not be able to know everybody who stays at Besta whereas she resides at L Section.

MR MAPOMA: She denies knowledge of your co-perpetrators as well. What do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: I do not know, she may be defending herself, I do not know. She can say whatever she feels like saying. She may acknowledge knowing them, or deny knowing them.

MR MAPOMA: In fact she denies that she was ever involved in any political activity and was not aware of what you call a plan. What do you say to that?

MR NGCOBO: I am not going to dispute what she says, but it's only a matter between her and her conscience.

MR MAPOMA: Who is Bazuga? What are his names?

MR NGCOBO: I know him as Bazuga, that is his combat name.

MR MAPOMA: How did you happen to know him?

MR NGCOBO: Amongst the MK instructors he was one of the people who lectured at classes. He used to assist and be involved in providing education.

MR MAPOMA: Where did you meet him?

MR NGCOBO: I met him at that training, the very first day on which I joined.

MR MAPOMA: Just for my recollection, where was this training where you first met him?

MR NGCOBO: At Bekilanga.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR NAIDOO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NAIDOO: Mr Ngcobo, were you involved in mainstream politics or were you merely just a soldier?

MR NGCOBO: I played quite a role. I started at Martial level, protecting the community and thereafter I was elected on to other positions and in the community I was elected into the Civic Organisation and I was part of the committee that encouraged development at Besta and installing facilities like toilets and bringing water, because it was also within the scope of our struggle that people should be able to have access to these other facilities.

MR NAIDOO: Were you the most junior member of the team that went to Mr Kunene's house on the fateful day?

MR NGCOBO: That is correct.

MR NAIDOO: Now, when Mr Manzi cross-examined you, you testified that the only reason Commander Bazuga wanted Mr Kunene killed was because he had killed Mliko. Was this mentioned by Bazuga or is it just what you assume?

MR NGCOBO: All of the Commanders were in favour of that decision. There were many of them, all of them.

MR NAIDOO: When these Commanders took that decision, did they ask for your input as well?

MR NGCOBO: No, they did not request my opinion, they just gave me an order.

MR NAIDOO: Did you not question the orders of Commander Bazuga?

MR NGCOBO: As a soldier you are not in a position to question an order even if you're just told to lie on your stomach, you do so without question, therefore I accepted that order without questioning him.

MR NAIDOO: Okay, just one final ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You were told you're going to kill this man. In your affidavit you say the following:

"I did not know much about Mr Kunene, but I just overheard them alleging that he was an informer working with former ZP, Zululand Police and South African Police Services, since he was living at C-Section where his house was burned down."

Is that correct, that you just overheard them that he was an informer?

MR NGCOBO: They were speaking in my presence because they sent Comrades to my home to collect me because when I arrived I saluted them and I heard them talking about Eric Kunene but at that time I was not aware that they were going to order me to go and kill him, but they returned later and informed me that yes, there is this person who is implicated in the death of Mliko.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you mention that in your affidavit?

MR NGCOBO: The investigator did not question me on some of the other matters.

CHAIRPERSON: But you said:

"I did not know much about Mr Kunene, but I just overheard them alleging he was an informer".

Why didn't you then say? You ...(indistinct) telling them what you knew about Mr Kunene, why did you not say, "and I was told he was responsible for the death of Mliko"?

MR NGCOBO: As I mentioned before the investigator found me whilst I was not in a correct frame of mind, my state of health was not its best and she proceeded asking me questions. She didn't give me a copy of what she had written down, of what I had said to her.

ADV DE JAGER: You're also serving a sentence for the illegal possession of a firearm, or the robbery of the firearm, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: Please, what are you referring to?

ADV DE JAGER: You've been charged in a court for murder and robbery of a firearm, is that correct? And you've been sentenced on those two counts.


ADV DE JAGER: For the murder charge you've been sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and for the robbery to 3 years imprisonment, is that correct?

MR NGCOBO: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now the robbery charge, are you also applying for amnesty on that?

MR NGCOBO: I do not understand.

ADV DE JAGER: You were found guilty of robbing a firearm, is that correct? In the court.

MR NGCOBO: With the gun from this dead man.

ADV DE JAGER: You were charged, can you remember why you went to jail? You went to jail because on the 31st of October 1993 you killed Mr Kunene and on that same day, the 31st of October 1993 you assaulted Mr Kunene and with force and violence took from the said person one Luger pistol number so-and-so-, which was his property. Is that right?

MR NGCOBO: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now did you take his pistol or not?

MR NGCOBO: It was taken by Nduna.

ADV DE JAGER: Now in this affidavit of yours, you say: "About the Inanda case, I committed..."

and the Inanda case is you robbed at Inanda on the 31st:

"About the Inanda case, I committed it solely with an intention to get a firearm in order to protect ourselves. However, it was seized by the police. I am also serving for the same offence."

MR NGCOBO: No, I think you are making a mistake. There is a case, a crime for which I was sentenced 5 years, that is robbing a firearm from a policeman. It was a, It involved a Sgt Ngoma. With regards to this hearing, I am seeking amnesty for murdering Bongane Kunene. I have not mentioned anything about seizing a firearm. I was involved in two cases, maybe there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NAIDOO: One last question, Mr Chairperson. Mr Ngcobo did you know why Nomtandaza wasn't called to testify in court during your criminal trial?

MR NGCOBO: I do not know because I mentioned it in court that I wanted Nomtandaza to be brought but she was not.

MR NAIDOO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.


FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry, I picked this up very late. On page 1 of the application form, paragraph 9, where it is required to furnish particulars of the acts or omissions, two murder and robbery. If I may ask for clarity, to which two murders is he referring to?

MR NGCOBO: I have one murder case and one robbery case. I don't know whether the person who wrote here made a mistake or something. I can show you my prison card.

MR MAPOMA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.



MR NAIDOO: That is the case for the applicant.


MR MANZI: Mr Chairman, I call the wife of the deceased.

MRS KUNENE: (sworn states)

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR MANZI: Mrs Kunene, the deceased in this matter was your husband, is that correct?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: How many children did you have?

MRS KUNENE: 6 children.

MR MANZI: What was the occupation of the deceased?

MRS KUNENE: He was a senior clerk at Port Natal after which he resigned and then became a business man and he had a bottle store.

MR MANZI: Apart from the bottle store, did he have any other means of getting an income, or did he derive any income other than that from his business as a bottle store owner?


MR MANZI: Before his death how long had you been married to the deceased?

MRS KUNENE: 15 years.

MR MANZI: Did you know your husband well, and his daily activities?

MRS KUNENE: Yes, very well.

MR MANZI: Was he working with members of either the South African police or the KwaZulu police, known as ZPs?

MRS KUNENE: No, he never did that.

MR MANZI: On the date of his demise, were you with him?


MR MANZI: The shooting did it take place in your yard or in the car on the road?

MRS KUNENE: It took place on the road.

MR MANZI: About how many people were involved in the shooting?

MRS KUNENE: Are you referring to the people who shot at him or the people who were just present in the vicinity?

MR MANZI: Those who shot at him.

MRS KUNENE: Although I cannot estimate the exact number but a group of boys just approached, but the one that I saw clearly was the one seated in front here.

MR MANZI: What caused the fight, or the shooting, what was the reason for the shooting?

MRS KUNENE: We were coming from the bottle store on the Sunday evening. There was a soccer match going on at the time and we were residing at L section and we were on our way to...(intervention)

MR MANZI: I'll ask you to be a little bit slow because they have to take the notes, right?

MRS KUNENE: We were supposed to go to F section where he was going to watch the soccer match. He had requested me not to alight from the car because I may delay inside the house and he would run late.

MR MANZI: And then as you were sitting in the car, what then happened?

MRS KUNENE: As I was seated in the car, a girl by the name of Nomtandaza came hurrying past and she was being chased by a certain boy who had on a long off-white coat. He was kicking her.

MR MANZI: Therefor this Nomtandaza was being assaulted?


MR MANZI: How was she being assaulted?

MRS KUNENE: He slapped her and he also kicked her and she fell.

MR MANZI: Did anybody intervene?

MRS KUNENE: A certain boy by the name of Ndwele, who was a relative approached and he intervened and said "please do not him this girl in front of our parents, you are showing disrespect to this family if you hit a girl in front of our parents."

MR MANZI: And then what happened?

MRS KUNENE: After that this boy drew a gun, wanting to shoot Ndwele and Ndwele ran into the house. My husband then approached and as he approached, on seeing this boy with a gun, he withdrew his firearm, but he told him that you should not start something that you are not going to be able to finish and this boy asked "Are you now intervening in this matter?" and my husband said, "Do not start something that you are not going to be able to finish. Put your gun away and leave my house." This boy then left. We then reversed the car because we were about to leave.

MR MANZI: Did your husband then leave the house and come to the car, to you where you were sitting?

MRS KUNENE: Yes. At that time the car was parked in the yard. Thereafter he got inside the vehicle and reversed the car. A certain boy by the name of Kholane approached. He had come to watch the soccer match.

MR MANZI: Your husband reversed the car onto the road, is that correct?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Okay, did the car then reach the road?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Then what happened?

MRS KUNENE: After the arrival of Kholane we then - Kholane took the other smaller kids to the shop. He said he was going to buy them sweets. As we were still waiting for them to return, these boys approached.

MR MANZI: Now both of you, that is your husband and yourself were in the car at that time, is that correct?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: On the road?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Outside your yard, is that correct?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct.

MR MANZI: Yes, tell us please,

what happened?

MRS KUNENE: The car was stationery. The boys approached from the toilet side and as they approached they were already firing. I was facing their direction and my husband was facing my direction and as they were shooting, my husband got out of the vehicle and because of the firing that was going on, I did not know what was happening, but because of a number of reasons, the person that I managed to see clearly, was Mr Ngcobo seated here.

MR MANZI: Now you say after that you don't know what happened because of the shooting, is that correct?

MRS KUNENE: That's correct. I think I had a black-out at that time for a short while but I became conscious again and I alighted the vehicle and I fell onto the ground.

MR MANZI: This must have been a traumatic incident. Have you since recovered from it?

MRS KUNENE: It traumatised me greatly.

MR MANZI: Have you recovered from it, and your children?

MRS KUNENE: I have never really recovered because even now it disturbs me, it comes back to me, whenever I am not well it comes back to me. I cannot even face a person who has a firearm in his possession because it just brings back those memories. Even now I haven't recovered.

MR MANZI: That is the evidence, Mr Chairman.


MR NAIDOO: Just a few questions Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NAIDOO: Mrs Kunene, were you involved in the daily affairs of your husband, his business affairs?


MR NAIDOO: It's been mentioned by the applicant that at one stage he resided at C-Section and the house was burned down. Is there any truth to this averment?

MRS KUNENE: Please repeat the question.

MR NAIDOO: It was mentioned by the applicant that at one stage you and Mr Kunene resided at C-Section and the house was burned down due to political reasons. Is there any truth to this averment?

MRS KUNENE: That is correct.

MR NAIDOO: Why was the house burned down?

MRS KUNENE: Up to this day I am not sure, but there was a rumour that circulated that my husband was an informer.

MR NAIDOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR MAPOMA: No questions, Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Just one question to raise Sir. Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MANZI: Did your husband belong to any political organisation?

RS KUNENE: He was an ANC member.

MR MANZI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Do you have further witnesses?

MR MANZI: No further witnesses, thank you.


MR MAPOMA: I have no witness Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it argument won't be very long?

MR NAIDOO IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee, the applicant in this matter is 29 years old with two minor children. He was only 24 years old when this offence was committed. As we have heard evidence earlier, he was indoctrinated into politics at a young age, 1986, when he joined the UDF at the age of 17. He is affiliated to the ANC and was so affiliated at the time when this offence was committed, when Mr Kunene was killed.

It must be borne in mind that the killing took place at a time when political violence was rife and even friends became enemies due to different political beliefs. There were many rumours and it may be that there was no truth in the rumour that Mr Kunene was an informer, but the applicant acted merely as a soldier and acted under instructions of a superior officer.

The applicant being a member of the ANC believed very strongly that the Zulu police were destroying the ANC and to further the objectives of the ANC he acted accordingly. I submit that he acted in terms of Section 20 sub-section 2(a) in that he removed an obstacle in the path of the struggle. My further submission that he has conformed with the requirements of the Act specifically in that firstly the act committed had a political motive and objective and the applicant was an active member of the ANC at all material times and secondly the applicant has made full disclosure of his involvement in the killings, obviously showing remorse for his past actions.

It is therefore my respectful submission, Members of the Committee, that the applicant does qualify for amnesty and amnesty ought to be so granted.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that you submit that the discrepancies or contradictions between the versions of the applicant and the widow do not indicate a desire to lie, but merely that in the confusion of the moment the parties' recollections may differ?

MR NAIDOO: That is correct, Mr Chairperson,. It must be borne in mind that at the time when this took place, Mrs Kunene would have been in a traumatised state and her recollection may be somewhat vague. Obviously her first interest would be the well-being of her husband.

CHAIRPERSON: Equally well the applicant may be, as I understand it, this is the first time he had been involved in an incident of violence of this sort and guns going off and bullets flying might make one a little apt not to recollect things in the proper order.

MR NAIDOO: That is also correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What about the differences in the two affidavits, that the other people shot and he didn't shoot and the involvement of the girl and whether he could see her or not see her and hear her or not hear her?

MR NAIDOO: Mr Committee Member, at the outset we tried to bring to the attention that the affidavit differed from the evidence that was to be given today by the applicant, solely on the basis that when he initially made the affidavit at prison, he was sceptical as to the person who was actually taking it down.

ADV DE JAGER: If you're sceptical, is that a reason for lying under oath?

MR NAIDOO: Member of the Committee, that may be true but I think the applicant tried to give a version to this Committee today as to the reason why. I can take that point no further.

ADV DE JAGER: Why should he be sceptical and lie about the gun for instance?

MR NAIDOO: I think in all probability, he didn't want to implicate himself in the statement, but as he mentioned when he was brought before this Committee, was that he wanted to make full disclosure to the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: How can you not implicate yourself while you're asking amnesty for that very offence? He's asking for murder and robbery.

MR NAIDOO: I think merely just being scared. I think that point has been overcome by him coming out before the Committee today and making full disclosure of his involvement in the actual shooting and the fact that he didn't fire and he went even so far as to admit that his bullet may have struck the deceased.

MR MANZI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm asking this Committee to dismiss the application by the applicant on the grounds that 1, the applicant has not made a full disclosure of the events of the day.

1) Before this Committee we have three statements all of them under affidavit, one statement in court, which the explanation we may accept that it was in a criminal matter, a different scenario compared to the application made now by the applicant.

2) We have an affidavit by the same applicant of the 16th November 1998 which affidavit differs materially with the statement as disclosed by the applicant today here in court. Up to today he wants us, in his evidence today he wanted us to believe that it was a well-planned mission which had an intention to achieve a political goal, but he also accepts that the ANC was not training killing machinery, killing machines, as such there was politics involved and as such there would be a proper planning for a proper achievement of goal, of a particular goal and in this case we are also aware of the fact that there were gangsters who were operating in various townships, which gangsters are still taking advantage of misunderstandings between various political organisations in the township. If we take that into consideration, the question is, doesn't the applicant fall under that category? He wants us to believe that there were people who were Commanders, some of the people he does not know their names properly, he knows them as Bazuga and there is also evidence that some of those he wants us to believe that they were Commanders, died in fact in execution of robberies. I wonder if those people did not die, they would not be here today making application for amnesty for the same robberies under the pretext that it was under politics.

Now here is a man, a head of a family, a responsible man. Only on a rumour a man is killed. There is no concrete evidence, it's just that "I was told by the Commanders". The purpose of the act was not to give amnesty to all those people who would go about with rumours. That would be dangerous even in the township today. The purpose of the Act was to solve the feelings of those who were affected by ...(indistinct) and by previous incidents and bring about reconciliation and in order to achieve that the act had to show that it was a political act and there was a full disclosure and then the reconciliation would be brought about by the acts of the Committee.

In this case there is nothing whatsoever that could bring about reconciliation. We are told not the truth and as and when the applicant was subjected to cross-examination in piecemeal evidence was coming which was contradictory in itself, therefore up until now we do not have full disclosure.

2) It is clear even from the evidence of the applicant, that there was a revenge of the death of one Mliko and that revenge, whether it came from a Commander or it came from a Commissar or it came from a man who called himself a Commander, the fact of the matter is that it was a revenge and the purpose of the Committee is not to give amnesty to those people who sought revenge, because revenge, if it were to be sought, many people would die even today.

ADV DE JAGER: About 99% of all the killings in KwaZulu Natal, wasn't it related to revenge?

MR MANZI: Yes, be that as it may, but this particular killing, if perhaps it was a revenge with political connotations in it, with concrete evidence or evidence that would cause this Committee to consider the fact that those people were somewhat ignorant, those who were participating there, then this Committee would be sympathetic, because this Committee is, consists of objective people, but this Committee can not be sympathetic to a person coming from a township, listening to the rumours in a dangerous situation, then acting on those rumours of the people who died in robbery circumstances, because this comes from the applicant himself, then that will tell the Committee that the applicant and his gang were dangerous people, not unless of course we do get evidence and information that would persuade the Chairpersons here that no, indeed this young man as the applicant wants us to believe, was mislead. No, but we had a group of gangsters here.


MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, regarding the political motivation, the political objective, it has been shown Chairperson, that there was a perception of some kind about the deceased person along the lines of being suspected as an informer.

It is not the duty of this Committee, Chairperson, to establish whether such perceptions were actually true or not and if now the applicant for amnesty acts along those perceptions which were arising from rumours, it will be recalled, Chairperson, that during those days it was a very dangerous situation. If unfortunately somebody has been rumoured to be an informer, it was very unfortunate for that person. Once, one in the circumstances may understand the circumstances which lead to that perception, rightly or wrongly, Chairperson, a perception.

Now coming to the applicant himself. This is a case where we are dealing with a foot soldier, he is not a person actually who took a decision to attack the deceased person but an order flew from above to him to obey and it is very difficult in the circumstances even to say that let us put his bona fides in question because an order is an order. That is the rule of the army and that is the kind of a person we are dealing with here.

In the circumstances, it is my submission that the Committee may have to acknowledge those circumstances, that we are dealing with a footsoldier here acting under the command, which command was based on a rumour which, during those days, led to these unfortunate circumstances. That is the only areas I wanted to address the Committee on.

I may also deal with the question of revenge. This revenge spoken of in this particular instance, differs to a certain extent from a revenge where a person revenges for what he or she personally suffered.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mapoma, I've got problems with that. If I would revenge the death of my brothers because they've been killed by my enemy, you say then I would be in a worse position for killing the enemy than another person who's also killing the enemy but he hasn't suffered the same loss?

MR MAPOMA: No, Sir, I'm just putting it in a context of political organisation as against another political organisation or political enemy then. I'm saying that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: So you could revenge the death of a friend or your Commander, but you can't revenge the death of your brother, even if it's political, if he died in a political battle?

MR MAPOMA: Perhaps you can, I won't take it further.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't here, aren't we getting a little bit confused by the use of the word revenge? What they were doing as I understand it, was killing him because he had acted as an informer and thereby enabled the police to bring harm to their party?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson I was about ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's not killing, revenge, because you've killed my brother and my feelings ..., here it is this man is an informer, he has given the police information, because they think it was his information that enabled the police to bring about the death of this man, so your revenge is for his actions as an informer, not for your emotional feelings of having lost a friend, which is a different sort of revenge.

MR MAPOMA: Absolutely, that's what I was trying, that's the point I'm driving home and in this case, these rumours, the basis of these rumours was only on the incident of the death of Mr Mliko, but apparently some cognisance had been taken of the rumours even before that, unfortunately in this particular situation. Thank you Sir, that is my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(microphone off) had asked in other matters and I don't know if we've been passed on on this one, that we can please have the full names of all possible victims. We've got the name of the mother but I gather now there are children as well who might be for reference to the other Committees, so if you could let us have details of all the family.