--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are about to start the proceedings. It's Thursday, 14 October 1999. We are continuing with the amnesty session at the JISS Centre in Johannesburg. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated on the record earlier.

We are about to hear the amnesty application of Patrick Luneng Masha, amnesty reference AM5875/97. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Good morning Chairperson, fellow Committee Members. We are ready to proceed, Chairperson. Perhaps before the applicant is sworn in, may I formally make an application for condonation of the non-attestation of his application form. It has not been attested to by a Commissioner of Oaths. He is ready to be sworn in for evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, I assume there's no objection to

that application?

MS THABETHE: No objection, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then the non-attestation is condoned and we will hear your client's application.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, he is ready to be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Masha, what language are you going to testify in?

MR MASHA: sePedi.

CHAIRPERSON: sePedi. Then you must put on the headphones.

PATRICK LUNENG MASHA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Masha, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter and you are applying for the bombing of a house belonging to one ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, can I?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: I realise that one of the victims doesn't have a mike.

CHAIRPERSON: A headset for one of the interested parties please. Just indicate when it's okay. We'll just wait until everybody who needs a headset has got one.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, we may proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Koopedi, sorry, you go ahead.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, we will start afresh.

Is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter and that you're applying for amnesty for having bombed the house of one, Elizabeth Makwana?

MR MASHA: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that this incident took place around 1986, at Tseshlaweng(?) village?

MR MASHA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I'm not sure if I should proceed because my learned friend is held up. Right? Okay, thank you.

Now during 1986, were you a member of any political organisation or party?

MR MASHA: Yes, I was a member of the South African Youth Congress and Cosas, in our community where I come from as they were affiliates to the UDF movement.

MR KOOPEDI: Now could you briefly tell this Honourable Committee what happened on this day when this house was attacked, or - ja, why this house was attacked.

MR MASHA: Briefly, in 1986, as I have already stated that I was a member of the organisations I mentioned, we sat down at a meeting where at it was stated that there's one of the teachers who, actually was a principal at the school, who was suspected as a spy against liberation movements.

Attempts were made at this meeting to attack his house, not actually to go and kill the person. We only used the petrol bombs, not dangerous weapons. Myself and the deceased, Jack, we were assigned to take this attack. That is why we did this incident at that time. Briefly, that is how it happened.

There was not much damage like we heard. What actually took place is that only the windows were smashed. The other thing is that after this attack we dispersed, Jack went his way. We didn't leave the place all together and I cannot mention where everybody went. In brief that is what I can say.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you attack Mr Phala's house?

MR MASHA: What happened is that according to the explanation that we got at the meeting, we were not given the correct direction to Mr Phala. So we attached the neighbouring house.

MR KOOPEDI: Now what was the political objective that you sought to achieve with this attack?

MR MASHA: As I have previously explained, the community was being harassed and being arrested. As I have explained Mr Phala's activities, we wanted to ward off these things so that we have unity in our community under common liberation movement to fight against apartheid.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you benefit anything financially from this attack?

MR MASHA: I was never enriched by this attack.

MR KOOPEDI: Where is Jack, this Jack that was with you?

MR MASHA: At the moment Jack long passed away.

MR KOOPEDI: May I for the record's sake indicate that when the applicant said ...(sePedi), that doesn't mean he passed away a long time ago, it just means that he's dead. It's a respectable way in Pedi of putting it.

Do you think that you have told this Committee the whole truth about this incident?

MR MASHA: If I'm not mistaken I've stated the whole truth.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you ever arrested or threatened with arrest for this incident?

MR MASHA: I have never been arrested and I was not threatened with arrest.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the applicant's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair. Before I proceed with my questions, Mr Chair, I would like to state it on record that I'm representing the victims in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: In the summary it's been written that the victims is Mrs Elizabeth Makwana, that's a mistake, it's actually Mr Philemon Makwana, the owner of the house that was targeted.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the owner of the house that was attacked, that was actually attacked?

MS THABETHE: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Philemon Makwana?

MS THABETHE: Makwana, yes. And I'm also representing Mr Phala, P-h-a-l-a, and his first name is Leshata, L-e-s-h-a-t-a. He is the principal who was the intended target.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've noted that.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Masha, you have given evidence that Mr Phala was suspected to be a spy, can you tell the Committee who he was suspected by?

MR MASHA: I have clearly stated that this was explained at a council meeting that we had in our community, that Mr Phala is suspected of being an informer.

MS THABETHE: Can you explain to the Committee on what basis was it said that Mr Phala was a spy, in this meeting?

MR MASHA: As I have explained, he was the one who was against liberation movements. It did happen that a lot of people were arrested and others get harassed by some of the soldiers in the village. This is what I've explained, that he was against the liberation organisations.

MS THABETHE: Maybe it's an interpretation problem, Mr Masha. What I don't understand or what I'm trying to ascertain from you is, I've heard that you're saying he was against political movements, but what I'm asking is, on what basis was a conclusion reached that just because he's against political movements or it is alleged that hew as against political movements, therefore he is a spy. On what basis did you reach this conclusion?

MR MASHA: May you please explain, I don't understand.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, may I just come in here?

Did you know who they were talking about at this meeting when they mentioned the name of Mr Phala?

MR MASHA: Chairperson, as I have explained, at this meeting that is where I knew who they were talking about. He was one of the principals in the community.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but as I understand you this is what was said at the meeting, you had no personal knowledge of Mr Phala being a spy and being against liberation movements. People were talking at the meeting, isn't that correct?

MR MASHA: I do not know, Chairperson, because personally the question you asked I have already explained, that this came out of a meeting that Mr Phala is an informer. Therefore, and what was explained and the reasons stated brought me to that conclusions.

ADV SANDI: Who was saying this at the meeting?

MR MASHA: I do not recall who was saying that because this happened long ago. As a lot of people were present and a lot injured(sic), I did not keep a diary on what happened and who said what.

ADV SANDI: You may proceed, Ma'am.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, I'm indebted to you.

You have also given evidence that you were assigned, you and Jack were assigned to go and attack this house, can you explain who assigned you and where did this take place, this assignment?

MR MASHA: I did state that the attack took place after the meeting, because this man functions in this manner, we must sit with that he be threatened or, then this attack took place at the Tseshlaweng village.

MS THABETHE: My question is, who assigned you? Because in the evidence that you gave you said you and Jack were assigned to go and attack this house. My question is, who assigned you?

MR MASHA: We were given this assignment at the meeting.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps the correct interpretation would be "by the meeting", not "at the meeting".

MS THABETHE: Thanks.

Were there any reasons why you specifically, and Jack, were assigned and not other people who were in the meeting?

MR MASHA: I cannot tell the reasons that made them to get that decision. Maybe the meeting decided that there's something it makes it fit for us to do this assignment.

MS THABETHE: Is there any particular reason why you did not include - the fact that this decision was reached in a meeting, is there particular reason why you didn't include this in your application?

MR MASHA: Your question is not well stated, I don't understand it. Could you please repeat it.

MS THABETHE: You have just given evidence that there was a meeting that was held and there was a decision that was taken that Mr Phala's house should be attacked, my question is, why didn't you include such an important factor in your application? Because as the application appears you just say -

... I'm reading from paragraph 10(b). You've stated that -

Is there any reason why you did not include this important factor of the meeting in your application?

MR MASHA: Yes, I do understand the question. Allow me to explain. What is in this application is in brief, because I know that I have applied for amnesty and I would come to explain all this that happened on that day today.

MS THABETHE: Maybe I was not listening or maybe I did not hear you properly. Can you describe how you actually attacked the house and what did you use to attack the house?

MR MASHA: I don't know whether you did not listen, but I'd like to explain. We were the two who were assigned to attack Mr Phala's house. I stated that it was myself and Jack Masha and I stated that Jack Masha is deceased. We attacked this house, the two of us attacked this house.

At the meeting it was understood that those who'd assist us or back us up would do so, but I want to state that we did this, the two of us. After the incident each one of us went his way. So I cannot tell where the other went.

MS THABETHE: My question, Mr Masha is, what did you use to attack the house. I'm talking about the actual attack now, the actual act that you're applying for amnesty for.

MR MASHA: I'm very thankful that you asked this question, that's your second question. We used petrol bombs as I stated this in the first instance. Nothing else that we used which - could have been more powerful than we used as petrol bombs.

MS THABETHE: What time was it when you attacked the house?

MR MASHA: If I still remember, it was around nine and ten.

MS THABETHE: My instructions, Mr Masha, from Mr Phala, is that he was never an informer or a police spy, do you have any response on this?

MR MASHA: I cannot tell, any person knows what his activities are. If that's what he states, I don't know how to react to that. But each one of us knows what he or she stands for.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am Any questions from the Panel?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one or two.

Did you know Mr Phala at all, Mr Masha, did you know him personally?

MR MASHA: As I've explained, he is a principal in one of the schools in the community. As I come from that community, I know Mr Phala.

ADV BOSMAN: I just wanted to know whether you knew about him or whether you knew him personally. Did you ever talk with each other or not?

MR MASHA: Will you repeat the question, I do not understand you.

ADV BOSMAN: I just want to know whether you knew him well or whether you just knew about him in the community.

MR MASHA: I just know that he is a principal at the school.

INTERPRETER: May the witness please repeat the name of the school, I missed that one, the pronunciation is not right for me.

MR KOOPEDI: I will assist if I may. Thibamoshito. The spelling would be T-i-t-a-m-o-s-h-i-t-o.

ADV BOSMAN: And then just one more question, if you can just clarity. If you look at paragraph 10(a) of your application form, you say there that the political objective was to eliminate the spies. Can you just explain what you meant by the word "eliminate".

MR MASHA: Let me briefly explain that I am not a white person, I cannot speak the white man's language, but according to my understanding the objective was to threaten all those who were against us. Those who understand English, may interpret it in the correct manner, but my language is sePedi, Northern Sesotho.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Was it your intention to kill those people you regarded as spies?

MR MASHA: I believe when I gave evidence here, I never intended to kill, I've always stated that we threatened these people.

ADV SANDI: How many petrol bombs did you have? Did each one of you have his own petrol bomb?

MR MASHA: At that time I stated that it was myself and Jack and if I remember well, I had three to four, as much as Jack had three to four of the petrol bombs.

ADV SANDI: Were all those bombs thrown into the house?

MR MASHA: Chairperson, we did thrown them into the house, but even so, we do not know if all of them did get into the house. Some of them would not ignite, some of them would, so we do not know how many of them did actually explode.

ADV SANDI: Did you say a wrong house was petrol-bombed?

MR MASHA: Yes, that is what I stated, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: That is because you had not been given a clear direction of the exact target?

MR MASHA: That is what I stated, the reason being correct as you state.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination, Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-exam, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Masha, you are excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any evidence, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, yes. Before you excuse him, can I ask for your indulgence, Mr Chair, something has come up and I want to confirm it with the other victim, on the question that was asked by our Honourable Member of the Committee, Mr Sandi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do you want to consult with somebody?

MS THABETHE: I just want to confirm quickly, yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well do that.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. I'm indebted to you, Mr Chair. Can I put this question to the witness please?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got further questions to the applicant?

MS THABETHE: Yes, please, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well let's hear.

Mr Masha, you're not yet excused, I have to ask you just to hold on a minute, Ms Thabethe has got some questions she wants to put to you, further questions.

MS THABETHE: It's just one aspect, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: My instructions, Mr Masha, are that there were 9 bombs that exploded that night and there were 25 bombs that were found at Mr Makwana's yard, that had not exploded. Do you have any comment on that? In other words, would you agree or disagree with that.

MR MASHA: Can you please repeat your question, I did not hear you. Let's check if the headsets are correct or not. Can you ask the technician to check his headsets.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do that, just check if his headset is right. My one has also been faulty, but for some or other reason it's now behaving. Is it on the right channel? Right, we seem to be back on line, as they say.

MS THABETHE: My question is, my instructions are that there were 9 bombs that exploded, or at least 9 bombs that exploded and there were 25 bombs that were found outside Mr Makwana's yard, that had not exploded. What is your response to that?

MR MASHA: I have explained. If I remember well, I had three to four petrol bombs, as much as Jack. There was supposed to be backups from the meeting, so we do not know whether the backup from the meeting had petrol bombs or not. But what I remember is what I've already explained. Whether there were 25 or 24 in the yard, which did not explode, I cannot confirm that, I do not know that and there's no comment that I will deliver on that.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You've got nothing?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You're now excused, Mr Masha, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Thabethe, have you got any evidence that you intend to present?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I had explained earlier on to the Committee that Mr Phala wanted an opportunity to come and address you on the allegations that has made of him. So I would like to call him to do so, Mr Chair, with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It doesn't seen as if - I mean, I assume that Mr Phala - who is Mr Phala by the way? Sitting next to you. Now I assume that he has heard what the applicant has said. The applicant doesn't say that he was a police informer as a fact, I think the applicant has tried to explain how this came about. So I hope he's heard and he's understood that. So I'm just saying that so that we don't get bogged down in an unnecessary issue which is really not alive. There is no evidence that, as a matter of fact, Mr Phala was a police informer. So perhaps that might assist him in presenting whatever he wants to present to us.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So he wants to say something?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'll have to swear him in.

Mr Phala, please switch on your microphone please and please stand, you must take the oath. Just give your full names for the record please, first.

LESHATA THOMAS PHALA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Yes Ms Thabethe.

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Phala, you had indicated to me that you briefly want to address the Committee on the allegations that have been made about you. Can you briefly do so.

MR PHALA: Okay. May I go on?

MS THABETHE: Sure.

MR PHALA: This thing of being called a spy or "impimpi" was started as early as 1985. I was organising some donations from different companies. I am having evidence here, or I'm having a proof that I was organising those donations. And gradually when the school was improving, somewhere, somehow, I don't know, I was called a spy. I think the reason was because the people that were donating our schools those monies, they paid regular visits to our school. In other words, they were monitoring their monies.

The worst part of it, the money that we used erected three additional classroom, which was donated by American Embassy. We bought those materials from the shop which was owned by Mr Masha's father. And this thing went on, went on.

On the 3rd of March, in April 1986, people passed along our school there and later on somebody came to me and told me I was a spy and I tried to clarify myself, but indeed that was in vain. I couldn't get the gist of the matter. And from that day I was labelled as an "impimpi" and this continued until on the 16th of April 1986, the day they bombed my next-door house. And I do little investigations. I thought that those people they bombed the house because they were looking for me and they left. I counted them. I even saved those bombs.

Unfortunately, during the death of the mother to Mr Makwana, people threw away those bombs, those bottles. In other words, let me say those bombs. And from there people called, they called them Cosas, they came regularly to our school. On the 4th they closed our school, on 22 April the same year, '86, they closed our school indefinitely, saying that I am a spy and I could not explain.

What worries me, it seems those people donated our school some monies, when they came there it seems they were promoting, according to them they were promoting apartheid and then I was never called in a meeting that Mr Masha says, where he says they discussed this as I am an "impimpi" or a spy.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Phala. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it white people that came to your school?

MR PHALA: I'm sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: Was it white people that came to your school?

MR PHALA: Yes, the owners of the monies that were donated to our school.

CHAIRPERSON: There was also an allegation that you were against the liberation movements.

MR PHALA: That one I don't know. To me it was just agreed, because I couldn't explain, but even if they said I'm an "impimpi" - I mean I was not aware that along the line I was called an "impimpi".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, than you, Mr Phala. Mr Koopedi, have you got any questions?

MR KOOPEDI: No questions, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Phala, those were troubled times, you would agree.

MR PHALA: Sorry?

ADV BOSMAN: I say, those were troubled times when all this happened.

MR PHALA: Of course.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes. All I wanted to know is, I mean we realise how you feel today because it probably still affects you. Are you still at the same school?

MR PHALA: Ja, ja, I'm still at the same school.

ADV BOSMAN: And do you feel better about everything now?

MR PHALA: Well now I'm a little bit alright because this thing damaged me physically and mentally and even emotionally.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but now that you've had an opportunity publicly to air your feelings, do you feel okay in the community?

MR PHALA: Yes, I'm okay.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you comfortable in the community?

MR PHALA: Of course I'm okay. The community that I've serving was not against me, it was the community of Mr Masha who was against me and I don't know the reason why.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, alright. No, I just wanted to ascertain whether you have overcome all the difficulties.

MR PHALA: No, I'm okay.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any further questions?

MS THABETHE: No further questions, no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Phala, you're excused. WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the evidence that you wanted to present, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the evidence that you wanted to present?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair. Just to add, I would request

the Committee to consider as well Mr Makwana as the victim for reparations because his property and his house was damaged as a result of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that we can deal with. Mr Koopedi, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A brief submission, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members. It is my humble submission that this applicant before you has complied with the requirements of the Act, in terms of him being granted amnesty.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, may I state the obvious that this applicant came before you voluntarily, there was no pressure on him to have made this application. His application was purely in line with reconciliation. It is indeed very sad for any person to be branded as a spy or informer and also very bad for someone's house to be bombed and particularly for no reason.

However, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, I believe that it is this application that has in a certain sense, given Mr Phala an opportunity to explain, not only to us but to the nation or perhaps the entire world, that he was never a spy. It is this application that has assisted to clarify issues. It is my belief that this application also has also enabled Mr Makwana an opportunity to formally know why his house was bombed.

From the evidence given by Mr Phala here, I seem to clearly believe that he has corroborated more than anything else, the evidence of this applicant and I am therefore saying that it's my submission that this applicant has fully disclosed all material facts in this matter.

And again, Chairperson, there has not been any personal gain. And finally, that the political motive was to scare off what people thought would have been, who was a spy. And it is on those basis' that I would ask that this applicant be granted amnesty. Thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi. Ms Thabethe, any submissions?

MS THABETHE: No submissions, Mr Chair, I will leave it in the hands of the Committee to make a decision, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Yes, that concludes the evidence and the formal aspects of this application. We will consider the matter and we will formulate a decision on the application and we will notify all of the parties as soon as the decision is available in the matter. Under those circumstances the decision is reserved. You are excused and thanked, both of you for having come, the legal representatives, for having come forward and clarified what has happened. We have noted that there was no real compulsion that was bearing on the applicant. At the same time we've appreciated the input of Mr Phala and we trust that this would go some way towards resolving possibly this matter that was outstanding in that particular community. We thank you very much, you're excused.

Which is the next matter, Ms Thabethe? Is it the one that we partly dealt with yesterday?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, it was supposed to be the matter of Khumalo and Madondo, but I haven't seen the applicants. They are coming from Boksburg Prison, they are not here.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, we're not sure if they've arrived?

MS THABETHE: They haven't. Oh, I'm being told that they are here. Maybe at this stage, Mr Chair, I would as for a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is Mr Koopedi appearing there?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so perhaps it's a good thing that we take a brief adjournment, to enable you to prepare that matter and so that we can dispose of that before we get to the other one which will take up most of the remaining time. So we'll stand down briefly and you must indicate to us when you are ready. We'll stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: ... applications of Khumalo and Madondo?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson. Both applicants are here before and are ready to proceed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. So just for the record, we will now hear the amnesty applications of Vusi David Khumalo, amnesty reference AM3055/96 and Patrick Musa Madondo, amnesty reference AM3289/96. The Panel is constituted as indicated on the record already. Mr Koopedi appears for the applicants and Ms Thabethe is the Leader of Evidence.

Mr Koopedi, is there anything else you want to put on record or are you ready to proceed with the evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: We're ready to proceed with the evidence. May the applicant be sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Mr Khumalo?

MR KOOPEDI: The applicant before you is Vusi David

Khumalo, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Khumalo, just switch on your microphone please and please stand. Are your full names Vusi David Khumalo?

VUSI DAVID KHUMALO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Khumalo, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter and further that you are applying for an armed attack on a police vehicle at/or near Katlehong, during 1994?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: And Mr Khumalo, during this time, were you a member of any political organisation or a supporter of any political organisation and if so, which one?

MR KHUMALO: The ANC, as well as being a member of the Self Defence Unit, as well as a member of the ANC Youth League.

MR KOOPEDI: You say you were a member of the ANC.

MR KHUMALO: Yes, and the Self Defence Unit.

MR KOOPEDI: The Self Defence Unit. Would this have been in Katlehong?

MR KHUMALO: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now shall we move to the events of this fateful day, the 18th of April 1994, and will you briefly tell this Honourable Committee what happened on this day.

MR KHUMALO: It was on a Monday, the 18th of April 1994. On the 17th I, together with other comrades with whom we patrolling, went to our camp and when we arrived there we received information that hostel dwellers wanted to attack our area.

From there we went to the veld or an open area where the hostel dwellers would be. I and other comrades were in front and there were others who were going to be ...(indistinct) up. I carried a 9mm and the co-applicant had an AK47.

There were five of us in front, it was myself, Moosa, Vusi Bongani and comrade Bovas. We hid ourselves as we approached the area. After about 10/15 minutes, two kombis approached. One was red and another was about silver-grey, a Husky, and they were approaching the direction of the township.

We shot at them and they also returned fire as we shot at them. We were lying on our stomachs. And this was continuing, a police vehicle approached from the Eden Park direction, which is close to the hostel. And the police shot at us and we returned fire. We were trying to find a way of escaping because there were now a lot of people shooting at us.

After a short while I ran out of ammunition and then I had to flee and my co-applicant also fled. I ran and hid somewhere and I threw away my firearm. And as I was still hiding there, I could still hear gunfire going on.

After about an hour the police were now walking around with hostel dwellers. At that time I was hiding myself. After a while a helicopter was flying by and I was found out. That is how I got arrested.

MR KOOPEDI: Was your co-applicant also arrested?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, he was also arrested there.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, did you benefit anything financially from this exercise? Did anyone pay you? Did you gain anything financially?

MR KHUMALO: No, I did not. I did this because we were protecting the township, we did not gain financially.

MR KOOPEDI: Although one understands as you've put it, that it was in a war situation, but was there any political objective that you sought to achieve?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, there was. We were members of the ANC and we were waging this war against IFP members.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Do you think there's anything that you have not told this Committee? You know, anything relevant and material to the events on that day?

MR KHUMALO: No.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will the evidence for now for this applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, Mr Chairman.

Mr Khumalo, the kombis that you shot at, why did you shoot at them?

MR KHUMALO: The kombis were approaching the direction of the township, which is something that they normally did not do.

ADV BOSMAN: But could you see who were in the kombis?

MR KHUMALO: Yes, we could.

ADV BOSMAN: Who were in the kombis?

MR KHUMALO: It was about eight or nine men in both kombis.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but what I don't understand, did you think they were IFP men or did you think they were police or what did you think, who were these people in the kombis? I don't understand that.

MR KHUMALO: We knew that they were IFP members because we knew the vehicles that they travelled in.

ADV BOSMAN: So when you shot at them, you thought you were shooting at IFP kombis? Do I understand you correctly?

MR KHUMALO: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Koopedi, any re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, Chairperson. If there are no further questions I would request to call the second applicant, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Koopedi. Mr Khumalo, thank you, you can stand down for Mr Madondo to come forward.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madondo, just remain standing. Are your full names Patrick Moosa Madondo?

PATRICK MOOSA MADONDO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please be seated. Mr Koopedi?

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, we will proceed.

Mr Madondo, is it correct that you are a co-applicant in this matter which involves the armed attack on a police vehicle near Katlehong on the 18th of April 1994?

MR MADONDO: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you've heard your co-applicant informing this Honourable Committee that on this day he was together with you, can you confirm that?

MR MADONDO: That is true, I was with him.

MR KOOPEDI: Now can you also confirm what he has told this Committee, in terms of the events of that day?

MR MADONDO: Yes, I do confirm what he said.

MR KOOPEDI: I missed on the interpretation, sorry.

INTERPRETER: He said he does confirm what the previous speaker said.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is there anything you would want to add to the evidence he has given?

MR MADONDO: He put it exactly as it happened, so there is nothing I can add.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you benefit anything financially from this incident?

MR MADONDO: No, it was part of activities and duties of protecting the community.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you think this Committee has been told the whole truth about the incident on this day?

MR MADONDO: Yes, he did tell the truth.

MR KOOPEDI: And just for the record, Sir, were you a member of any organisation in the area, a political organisation?

MR MADONDO: Yes, I was a card-carrying member of the ANC.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

Mr Madondo, in the whole shoot-out, exactly what was your role, what did you do?

MR MADONDO: I was firing as well as I was trying to get a way of escaping.

MS THABETHE: And can you explain where you got these firearms from that you were using to shoot or to patrol the area?

MR MADONDO: It had been bought by the community who had contributed to the purchasing of firearms, so as to protect the same community.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one, to clarify please Chairperson.

Mr Madondo, what was your intention when you shot, was it to kill someone? Because you said something "that I planned to escape", but I mean, you shot to kill, or didn't you? You were convicted of attempted murder, this is why I want to clarify this.

MR MADONDO: It was a means of trying to escape.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but if someone got killed in the process, you would have been quite satisfied with that.

MR MADONDO: It would have concerned me if that had happened, because it was not exactly my intention for that to happen.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but you did realise that someone could get killed when you shot.

MR MADONDO: Where the incident happened it was such that I could not really tell where my firearm was pointing at.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you using? What firearm were you using?

MR MADONDO: An AK47 rifle.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a dangerous weapon, not so?

MR MADONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you don't play when you shoot with an AK47, if somebody is hit by that thing then a person could be killed, not so?

MR MADONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And people were shooting at you too, so if you got up, if you didn't hide, if you got up, what would have happened to you if you exposed yourself?

MR MADONDO: I would have been shot, there were bullets flying all around me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, I mean it was a shoot-out, it was a mini-war going on there, not so?

MR MADONDO: Yes, we were involved in a war with hostel dwellers, the ANC and the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-exam, Chairperson. That will be the evidence of both applicants, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Koopedi.

ADV BOSMAN: Can I just clear up something please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes of course.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Koopedi, I notice in the application forms of both your clients, that they're applying for attempted murder. There's been evidence that they were arrested with the firearms, what is their position in regard to amnesty on the charge of unlawful possession of the firearms and ammunition, or the firearms?

MR KOOPEDI: My instructions, and perhaps I might have to check again, but my instructions are, after they shot back at the police and there was a lull in firing, they ran away and disposed of, threw away the firearms that they had and when they were arrested, they were not in possession of any firearm. And my understanding was therefore that they were only convicted of attempted murder, nothing was said about the possession of weapons. But I might have to check if they ...(indistinct)

ADV BOSMAN: I may be wrong in my reading of the - I didn't check the names and the charges, but perhaps you could just check, you could perhaps just check because somewhere I did see something about unlawful possession of firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and besides, I mean are your clients not asking for amnesty for that in any event, whether they've been convicted or not?

MR KOOPEDI: They will ask for amnesty for possession of firearms, perhaps an unknown number of ammunition in that they used firearms to do this, but I think in their application forms all they put in was attempted murder because they were convicted of that and no other offence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it is clear that they were involved in a shoot-out.

MS THABETHE: That's right, and they were in possession, yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I don't know whether you need to at this stage. Do you want to clarify anything?

MR KOOPEDI: I believe, Chairperson, it will be a waste of time to consult on the issue, it is common cause that they were in possession of firearms. My instructions are to assist them in applying for amnesty. I would therefore request this Committee to consider the fact that they were in possession of firearms and ammunition at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, that's fine.

Mr Madondo, you are excused, thank you. You can stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, have you got any submissions on the merits of this case?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A short one, Chairperson.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, I submit that these two applicants before you, as evidence has shown, they were members of a Self Defence Unit in Katlehong, charged with the protection of the community. The facts are that there was a belief that there would be an attack from the nearby hostel on the community.

These two applicants before you are part of a group that went to check on whether this attack would occur or not and whilst they were at their posts near the hostel, they saw two kombis, well known to them to be belonging to the hostel dwellers, they immediately opened fire on these vehicles and I believe this is simply because they were seeing people with whom they were at war. Unbeknown to them there was going to be another third dimension or third factor to this incident, the police came on the scene, fired at them, they also had to fire back at the police.

My submission is that the political objective is in a sense, very clear that this was in a war situation where one political organisation wanted dominance over the other, or perhaps one political organisation wanted not to be dominated by the other.

It is my further submission, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, that these two applicants gained nothing financially at a personal level and it is my further submission that I believe that all the relevant facts have been fully disclosed to you. And it is on those basis' that I will ask that amnesty be granted to both applicants. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Koopedi. Ms Thabethe, any submissions?

MS THABETHE ADDRESSES: I have no submissions, Mr Chair, but maybe - there's a point on the date of the incident that maybe we need confirmation on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Because Mr Madondo's application seems to be saying that it happened on the 16th of September 1994, and that's the date of the sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the sentence?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of the incident?

MR KOOPEDI: The 18th of April, Chairperson, 1994.

MS THABETHE: Which is correctly indicated in the amnesty application of the other applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Thabethe. Is there anything else that you wanted to add, Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, for what it is worth and without any attempt to pressurise a decision on this matter, both applicants are in prison and have been advised that they may be released some time in February, and I thought I should bring this fact to the Honourable Committee, that the Committee should know that. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi, we've noted that. Is that February 2000?

MR KOOPEDI: I didn't get that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that February 2000?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, February next year.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: May we be excused, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are going to reserve the decision, we will endeavour to have it available as soon as circumstances permit, bearing in mind the tremendous pressure that the Committee is operating under, but we will do whatever is possible, in order to have a decision available as quickly as possible. So we'll reserve the decision in the matter. We thank you for assistance and you are excused.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe, I assume that's it only the matter that stood down since yesterday that is remaining on the roll?

MS THABETHE: That is correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I don't know, it might take you a minute or two to reset the place here, do you want us to just stand down for you to get the other people and the applicants?

MS THABETHE: They appear to be ready, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they immediately available or?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, they are.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, then we won't stand down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are now continuing with the amnesty applications of Mandla Lawrence Thanjekwayo and others, which stood down from yesterday afternoon. We have heard the testimony of Mr Shabangu and that has been completed.

Just for the record, the Panel is constituted as has been indicated, the appearances are as previously indicated. Mr Shilepo is not - is there a new appearance in the stead of Mr Shilepo?

MR MASAGELA: Mr Shilepo today unfortunately won't be available, so I'll be standing in for him, Mr Chair. My name is Morgan Masagela.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just again?

MR MASAGELA: Morgan Masagela.

CHAIRPERSON: And the surname?

MR MASAGELA: Masagela.

CHAIRPERSON: Masagela?

MR MASAGELA: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Masagela. So you're on behalf of Ms Gumede?

MR MASAGELA: For Ms Gumede, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So that is the one situation, and I see that Ms Vilakazi is just arriving. I was just going to enquire about her situation. Ms Thabethe, what is the position of Ms Vilakazi? Are you not sure?

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it just that we have started too early for her?

MS THABETHE: Maybe, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And she's lost her seat too! Yes, Mr Masagela, if you want to be a gentleman ... That particular table is reserved for the ladies. Yes, I think then we've got a full house, everybody is present. The appearances would then be as indicated previously on the record, except for the change in respect of the representation of Ms Gumede.

Mr Honnorat, who is the next applicant?

MR HONNORAT: The next applicant would be applicant number 1 on the list, Mandla Lawrence Thanjekwayo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Will Mr Thanjekwayo then come forward.

MR HONNORAT: I will be leading him, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You will be leading.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MANDLA LAWRENCE THANJEKWAYO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Mr Honnorat?

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Thanjekwayo, at the time of the incidents which led to the murder of Jacob Manoto on the 61st of April 1993, were you affiliated with any political organisation or liberation movement?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: Which was the organisation?

MR THANJEKWAYO: That was the ANC Youth League.

MR HONNORAT: What were you in respect of that organisation?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say that I took part in the assault and when I entered I could see that he was fighting to defend himself ...(intervention)

MR HONNORAT: One second, Mr Thanjekwayo, that was not the question. The question was, what was your position within the ANC Youth League at the time.

INTERPRETER: He says "Crime Committee", I don't know -he says Crime Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Crown?

MR HONNORAT: Crime Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Crime. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Crime Committee. You're a member of the ANC Youth League's Crime Committee, would that be right?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, Crime Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in Diepkloof township, Soweto, is that right?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, Diepkloof, Zone 5.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now we understand you. Thank you.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Were you summoned to a meeting at the Lutheran Church on the 21st of April 1993?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I was invited to the meeting.

MR HONNORAT: Did you attend it?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I did.

MR HONNORAT: What was the outcome of the meeting, just briefly, the outcome.

MR THANJEKWAYO: A decision was taken that an informer should be killed.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. What did you do after that?

MR THANJEKWAYO: After that, since the place was full of the community members I was standing outside the gate, watching whether the police were coming or not and the comrades were busy with the meeting inside and when they finished to meeting, to go and attack, that's then when I joined them.

MR HONNORAT: What did you do in the course of the attack?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I took a stick which is for a pick axe and I followed the comrades into the yard. The comrades were already in the yard and one lady from that house was throwing at us with hot water and I hit her with the pick stick and I also participated in the assault.

I ran, I saw a Smirnoff bottle, I took it to collect some petrol to put into it and when I arrived he was already dead and I poured petrol over him and Pete Shabangu set him alight.

INTERPRETER: Sorry, I will have to ask him to speak a little bit slowly, it's too fast.

MR HONNORAT: Yes. And the lady that you hit with that pick axe, could you see what was her relation to the deceased?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I think it was the deceased child. Her name was Beverley.

MR HONNORAT: So why did you take part in the attack against the deceased and why did you do the things which you've described to the house? - you did on that night.

MR THANJEKWAYO: He was said to be an informer in that he was working in corroboration with the police.

MR HONNORAT: Who communicated this information to you?

MR THANJEKWAYO: That was the community where he was staying and the person who told me about the meeting, that there would be a meeting, also informed me that he was an informer and I knew that they were going to discuss issues involving informers.

MR HONNORAT: When you participated in the attack and you committed the acts you have described to this house, were you convinced that in fact the deceased was a police informer?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say I didn't know this person very well, but I've already heard from the people who were staying with him, or next to him, that he was an informer.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. As part of the liberation struggle and as part of the Crime Committee of the ANC Youth League, what was your personal attitude, political attitude towards informers in your community?

MR THANJEKWAYO: We used to burn them.

MR HONNORAT: Did you obtain any financial gain from the acts you were involved in and associated with on that night?

MR THANJEKWAYO: No.

MR HONNORAT: Did you do anything that night against the deceased and the deceased child, Beverley, as you called her, because you had a personal grudge or spite and against the deceased and his family?

MR THANJEKWAYO: No.

MR HONNORAT: What was the political reason for the liberation movements to deal with police informers the way you have described to this house?

MR THANJEKWAYO: We were further - we were actually furthering the struggle, that was part of it.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. In retrospect, do you feel remorse about your participation in the attack that night and you feel like asking for forgiveness to the deceased's family?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I feel very sorry about it and if the family of the deceased was present here, I was going to ask for forgiveness and even in this present moment I am sorry for having committed the acts which landed me up in jail.

MR HONNORAT: Did you feel at the time of the act that politically you were justified in doing that?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, at the time when we went to attack it was necessary, because it was known that all other informers have to be burnt, you don't have to even discuss anything with them.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions for this applicant, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, perhaps I should start with you. Have you got any questions for this applicant?

MS VILAKAZI: I have a few questions, Honourable Chair, but firstly let me convey my apologies for - I was in the media room, I was not aware that the proceedings are starting.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, we will consider that apology, Ms Vilakazi, we'll let you know.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's perfectly in order, no problem. And whilst we are at it, Mr Shabangu gave evidence yesterday, not very dissimilar to the evidence has given now, but obviously you couldn't attend yesterday afternoon, so if you wanted to deal with anything that he had testified or if you've got any questions that you want to put to him, then you must just give us an indication, we'll get him back, he is available if you want to ask him anything.

MS VILAKAZI: As I indicated yesterday, Honourable Chair, that I would have some problems with regard to structuring the cross-examination, seeing that my clients are not part of the proceedings. So I would not be able to be well informed with regard to what to test actually. So it was on that basis that I indicated that with regard to the recordings, then I would use the right to cross-examine later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, that is perfectly in order. I'm just saying that in the same way that you would be able, I assume, to deal with some issues that would be relevant for your client's case with this applicant if you want to deal with anything that you are able to at this stage, in respect of Mr Shabangu, then he's also available to come back for you to deal with that at this stage. Your client's rights have been reserved in any case, so that's not taken away at all you know, you would always be entitled to deal with further cross-examination at a later stage if it's necessary.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Honourable Chair for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but for the moment then you will deal with Mr Thanjekwayo.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Thank you.

Mr Thanjekwayo, you said that on the 21st of April, when the meeting was held at the Lutheran Church, you were standing outside, did I heard you correctly?

MR THANJEKWAYO: That's correct. Switch on your mike.

MS VILAKAZI: And you've also said that you were at that time a member of the Crime Committee, is that correct?

MR THANJEKWAYO: That's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And you've also said that you knew that matters concerning informers were going to be discussed in that meeting, is that correct?

MR THANJEKWEYO: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Matters concerning informers, are they not - were they not part of the responsibilities of the Crime Committee?

MR THANJEKWAYO: No, there were other issues like rape or robbery in the township. Those are the issues that we will deal with.

MS VILAKAZI: Now which committee was responsible for looking at the questions of informers? If there was any. Or perhaps I could rephrase my question. Was there a committee which dealt with informers and if there was, which Committee was that?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say we used to call them Street Committees. Those were the people responsible for informers' issues.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, then let us move on. You've also testified that while you were at the house of the deceased there's a lady who was throwing you with hot water. Did I heard you correctly?

MR THANJEKWAYO: ...(no English interpretation)

MS VILAKAZI: Who was throwing you with hot water.

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, that's correct, it was so.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you know who she was?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I know her.

MS VILAKAZI: Who was it?

MR THANJEKWAYO: She was called Beverley.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you know her before?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I didn't her, I only came to know that she's Beverley while I was in prison.

MS VILAKAZI: Now where was she from, where did she get the water from?

MR THANJEKWAYO: She got the hot water from the house, her own house. It was at the time when we were coming to attack.

MS VILAKAZI: Was she inside the house at the time when you went to attack or was she outside?

MR THANJEKWAYO: We found her inside the yard. It was at the time when we were entering the gate. She was inside the yard.

MS VILAKAZI: Oh so you mean she was outside the house, but within the yard, with the water when you entered the gate?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, inside the yard but next to the door to the house.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. I want to refer you to your application, on page 10 of the bundle. I beg your pardon, I seem to have made an incorrect reference. Okay, on page 10, it's your hand-written document. Was this written by you?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I can see it.

MS VILAKAZI: In the fourth paragraph, the one that starts with-

...(intervention)

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairman, can I intervene. The question was when it was hand-written, it was written by him and he says "I can see it", he did not answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to intervene but I wanted to allow Ms Vilakazi just to finish that sentence. What is his response, just ask his response, did he write this statement here?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I wrote this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Sorry, Ms Vilakazi.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you.

Paragraph 4, it starts with -

Can you see that?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I can see that.

MS VILAKAZI: The second sentence says -

Can you explain what you wanted to say there.

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I can see that. I wanted to say that I didn't enter the hall while they were discussing the issue. That's what I was trying to say.

MS VILAKAZI: But it says -

It does not refer to the hall.

MR THANJEKWAYO: No, I was present when he was attacked.

MS VILAKAZI: So why did you say -

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say maybe this is a mistake because I was present when we attacked the man, I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thanjekwayo, is this your handwriting? Is this your handwriting here?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, it is my handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: You can write English? Are you able to write English?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say no, I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: What language do you normally speak?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I speak Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you been to school?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I attended school.

CHAIRPERSON: What standard did you complete at school?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Standard two.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you write this in Zulu?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would just say that this was a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright. Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: Can I refer you to the letter that is dated 13/11/95, written to the Truth Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?

MS VILAKAZI: It starts on page 7. I want to refer him to page 8 of the bundle.

The tone of the letter is that there are some people who were found guilty, but who were not there when this thing happened. Is that correct?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, that's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Then on page 8, the second sentence -

... I suppose it's supposed - it meant Nyaluka ...

Can you clarify that please.

MR THANJEKWAYO: I wanted to say that there were people involved in the incident who were not caught.

MS VILAKAZI: Are those the people that you are referring to by name?

MR THANJEKWAYO: No, not those ones I quoted there, but there were other people who were involved in the attack. Most of them were not arrested.

MS VILAKAZI: The problem is that the sentence is not very clear, so I'm just trying to get the message of the sentence. You're referring to yourself, Peter Shabangu, Patrick Nyaluka, Thobile Tshabalala -

Would I be right to interpret it to mean that yourself and those that you named were comrades but you were not caught?

MR THANJEKWAYO: You'll be correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Would I be correct to say you were not involved - you were not caught, but involved?

MR THANJEKWAYO: That's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: But then you were sentenced, is that not correct?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't this sentence mean that this applicant and those others were comrades and the others who were not caught were also comrades?

MS VILAKAZI: Honourable Chair, I've been trying to get the sense of the sentence and the applicant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's a typed version of something which is not before us, I don't know, I haven't seen the original of this thing but at least this typed version of course you know is not as clear as it could possibly have been, but it looks to me as if, just taking that sentence, that that is the kind of sense that the writer of this letter was trying to convey, that there were other comrades who were involved but who were not caught, apart from these comrades who were caught.

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: But with due respect, Honourable Chair, I have tried to get the explanation from him and I said would I be correct to say that he was not caught, but he was involved, and he said I would be correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know, he says he passed standard two. So I don't know what sort of weight can be attached. It's obviously nonsensical, he's sitting, he was arrested, he says he was involved. So you know, we must take the objective facts here you know, otherwise we go around in circles.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Vilakazi, perhaps I could just assist you here. If you look at it in context, he gives the names of people who were not caught, but involved, in the following paragraph.

In the context it's quite clear what he meant there.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got any other questions, Ms Vilakazi?

MS VILAKAZI: No further questions, thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I'm sorry, I thought that you still had something else. Yes, Mr Masagela?

MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

As a by-the-way, Mr Chair, on page 7, on the issue that was canvassed by my learned colleague, paragraph 3, it would appear that the applicant clearly stated that he was fully involved in the killing. I just wanted to draw that to your attention.

ADV SANDI: Yes, in his evidence-in-chief as well he places himself fully in the scene of the incidents.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Thanjekwayo, why did you assault the daughter of the deceased?

MR THANJEKWAYO: She was throwing hot water at me and the other people when we were entering the place.

MS THABETHE: How would you justify that politically, or to the political objective that you wanted to achieve?

MR THANJEKWAYO: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure whether ...(intervention)

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say that we didn't actually aim to assault but we had to threaten her a little bit before we can proceed to attack the father.

MS THABETHE: Maybe let me rephrase my question. You see you've indicated that from the meeting the order was that you should go and attack the informer, the police informer, that was Mr Manoto, and I understand you justifying that politically, but now I want you to justify why Beverley was assaulted by you and how is that political.

MR THANJEKWAYO: I will say we only assaulted the lady because she poured water at us and we didn't seriously assault her, we just I mean, assaulted her to get out of our way and we continued.

MS THABETHE: I'll leave it there, Mr Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, Mr Chair, can I indicate that I do have the hand-written statements, if you need them. I have them in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Of this thing that we ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Of all the typed versions, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Of all the typed versions.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume you would have checked them.

MS THABETHE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And I would assume that you're happy with the typed version.

MS THABETHE: So far I am.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Then I don't think we're going to strain our eyes to try and decipher the hand-written versions. We are doing irreparable damage to our eyes through doing that, you know we have to read through such a lot of hand-written stuff that we must decipher, that it's not a pleasure at all. I thought my handwriting was bad. Are you done, you have no further questions?

MS THABETHE: I have no further questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, thank you, Chair.

Mr Thanjekwayo, if I may just refer you to page 8 of the bundle where you state that you are deeply worried about the following because they are innocent and then you give the names of Vusi Fakude and Sipho Tshabalala and Themba Zondo and Mandla Mbatha. Are they all here, these four people?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, they are present.

ADV BOSMAN: And now why do you say that they are innocent, were they not there?

MR THANJEKWAYO: When we were attacking I didn't see them myself and that's the reason why I say they were innocent.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Interpreter, can you just repeat that, I didn't quite follow.

INTERPRETER: When we were attacking the deceased they were not present, I didn't see them. He says when they were attacking the deceased he did not see them.

ADV BOSMAN: Were they comrades?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I will not be sure, but I can only state that I didn't see them when we were attacking the place.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you see them at the meeting?

MR THANJEKWAYO: As I've stated that I was outside, I didn't enter the place. I could see comrades coming into the church and I didn't see them.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you speak to them in prison at all?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I didn't get a chance to talk to them or ask them where they were.

ADV BOSMAN: Have you never spoken to them since you've been charged?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I did speak to them after their arrest.

ADV BOSMAN: And what did they tell you, were they there?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, they said they were present.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you know them well?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Now if they told you they were present, why do you say you are deeply worried because they are innocent and they deserve to be free?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I regarded them as people who were innocent. I mean despite the fact that later I discovered that they were present, after I have had a discussion with them and they told me so.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you discover this before you wrote the letter or after you'd written the letter?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I had already returned the letter.

ADV BOSMAN: Now I'm not clear on this. You told me that you spoke to them after you were charged and you said you did not have time to speak to them in prison, now when exactly did you discover that they were present there? Can you just clarity that please.

MR THANJEKWAYO: I would say that I spoke to them after I have written this statement of mine and then thereafter I met them and they started telling me that they were present in the Lutheran Church during the meeting, but when the other comrades proceeded to go and attack, they didn't got to the place of the attack.

ADV BOSMAN: So is this what you still believe now? They told you that they did not go to the place of the attack, is this your final information from them?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, that's correct.

ADV BOSMAN: And just one more question, Mr Thanjekwayo. Why do you want Hector Thobile, Ice Mafike and Bongani Sifa to face the law? Why do you specifically ask the Committee to make it possible for them to face the law and to be prosecuted?

MR THANJEKWAYO: It is painful because I was arrested myself, but I mean, they were present when we did commit the act, unfortunately they were not arrested and brought to book.

ADV BOSMAN: But do you feel they should be arrested now?

MR THANJEKWAYO: Yes, I would say so.

ADV BOSMAN: Did they testify at the hearing perhaps?

MR THANJEKWAYO: They were not present.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Honnorat, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Just one question, Mr Chairperson.

When the statements were written up for the application for amnesty, were they written up on behalf of the applicants because they were uneducated?

INTERPRETER: Can you repeat your question please.

MR HONNORAT: At the time that the statements were written up on behalf of the various applicants for amnesty, were they written up on behalf of them because the applicants themselves were uneducated?

MR THANJEKWAYO: They completed most of the form.

MR HONNORAT: Just one last question. Do you know where Mr Fakude and Mr Tshabalala stay? Where do they reside?

MR THANJEKWAYO: I don't know. I heard that Fakude stayed next door to the deceased, but I didn't know that myself personally.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Honnorat. Mr Thanjekwayo, you are excused, thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, who would be the next applicant?

MR HONNORAT: The next applicant, Mr Chairperson, will be applicant number 2, Ndumiso Patrick Nyaluka.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, will Mr Nyaluka come forward please. Yes, Mr Nyaluka, do you hear the interpretation on your headset?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, I can hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Please stand. Are your full names Ndumiso Patrick Nyaluka?

NDUMISO PATRICK NYALUKA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Is it Mr Honnorat or Mr Zulu?

MR HONNORAT: I'll be leading him, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're leading.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Mr Nyaluka, do you know about the murder of Mr Jacob Manoto in April 1993?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, I know.

MR HONNORAT: At the time were you a member or supporter of a political organisation involved in a struggle against apartheid or liberation movement?

MR NYALUKA: I was an ANC Youth League member in Diepkloof.

MR HONNORAT: Do you know about a meeting having taken place at the Lutheran Church in Diepkloof, on the 21st of April 1993, the same day the deceased was killed?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, I remember the meeting. Comrade Hector informed me about this meeting.

MR HONNORAT: Did you attend it?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, I was present.

MR HONNORAT: What was the outcome of the meeting?

MR NYALUKA: When I arrived at the meeting the meeting was already in progress. They were talking about Jacob Manoto, quoting him as a police informer. I sat in the meeting and listened. And since there were other people staying at Dada and I was staying in the upper side, the people who were neighbours stood up to add some input to say that this Manoto was an informer and he's involved with police and they were asking that the people or the forum should take some steps against him.

MR HONNORAT: What steps were eventually taken?

MR NYALUKA: As the ANC gathered in the church, we took a decision that we should got to Jacob Manoto's place to discuss this matter with him.

We left the meeting as a group of Youth League members, to go and discuss this with him, leaving the others in the church. We tried to talk to him after finding him on top of the roof and we were not able to talk to him because he started throwing stones at us.

As he was throwing stones at us we picked up stones and as members of the organisation we started throwing stones back to him. He ran into the house.

MR HONNORAT: Did you also throw stones at him?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct. He was also throwing stones at us from the roof of the house, his own house.

MR HONNORAT: Okay, what was your participation, if any, in the assault against the deceased and events leading up to his death on that day?

MR NYALUKA: My involvement was, as he was throwing stones at us I went to the next-door house. I opened a window in comrade Fakude's house. I went into the roof of comrade Fakude's house and I threw an iron object into the roof of his house and the other comrades who had already the house and they had already dragged him and pulled him outside.

MR HONNORAT: What was your purpose Sir, for going to the roof and throwing an iron at the roof?

MR NYALUKA: I was trying to destroy his roof so that we can get access to him or take him out of the house, as an informer. I realised if I were to throw the stones inside I might even injure some comrades who were inside, so I alighted from the roof of the house and at the time when I arrived in his yard the comrades were already assaulting him. And personally myself I burnt the car.

MR HONNORAT: Did you associate yourself, I mean in your feelings, in your perception of what an alleged informer deserved, with the deceased being dragged out and put to the death by the other comrades? Did you associate yourself with that?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, it's because in the situation we were in at the relevant time, as an ANC member, we all knew that if someone was an informer that person should be burnt.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but if that is what you say, then - sorry, Mr Honnorat. If you say the position was that any person who is suspected or accused of being an informer should be killed, surely it cannot be true that you had gone there to speak with Mr Manoto?

MR NYALUKA: No, as I explained, as members of the organisation - I'm saying that since we're going to his house and when arriving in the house we found him on top of the house and he started throwing stones at us and we didn't get a chance to speak to him, that's when the fight started.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you not shout at him and say look, we have not come to fight with you, we want to talk to you?

MR NYALUKA: He didn't want to listen to us, anything whatever, he was very angry when we arrived, he was fighting and he was throwing stones. It took about one and half, half hour he was fighting and then it ended up when we had to enter the house where we took him out and assaulted him.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you not just leave him alone and - I mean, seeing that the man does not want to talk to you, he thinks you've come to fight with him and he's throwing stones at you, some people are even throwing hot water at you. Why don't you just leave these people, you go back to the church or wherever you want to go, you just leave them?

MR NYALUKA: As members of the ANC we couldn't have stood that kind of behaviour. As people who were in the Diepkloof community and as comrades and as people who were responsible for issues like this and we were dealing with things like rape and thieves and robbers and also informers, we were dealing with those issues, so we had to do something.

ADV SANDI: Were you armed when you went to see him?

MR NYALUKA: We were not armed, we were empty handed, we only picked up stones next to his house and also the stones which were used to decorate the gardens of the nearby houses. And myself, the iron that I got and I used to throw into his house, I got it from his yard and I took it to the roof.

ADV SANDI: How big was this group that had come to see Mr Manoto?

MR NYALUKA: I wouldn't be able to estimate, but we were many. As the African National Congress members we were many members and the church was full.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Honnorat.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Nyaluka, did you perceive that as a result of the violent retaliatory attitude by the deceased when you came as a group to his house, did you perceive that that was something which proved to you that he was indeed a police informer?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, we took like that because he didn't even want to listen to us. When we arrived he started fighting, he was violent.

MR HONNORAT: So after the violent reaction, was there any doubt in your mind that he was in fact a police informer?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, that convinced me that he is an informer because as ANC members, as we were coming to him to speak to him and if he knew that you were a police informer and you see ANC members coming, you knew - I mean, normal people will fight back.

MR HONNORAT: Did you achieve any financial gain from your actions and your participation in the assault against the deceased on that night?

MR NYALUKA: No, I didn't gain anything, I was working for the organisation.

MR HONNORAT: Did you know the deceased before the date of the assault?

MR NYALUKA: I didn't know him, I was staying on the upper side, that's Fidelitas(?).

MR HONNORAT: And did you do your actions because of any personal malice against him, ill will towards the deceased?

MR NYALUKA: No, we were not in bad terms. I didn't even know him, I saw him the first time the day we attacked him.

MR HONNORAT: What was the action of the comrades who were higher than you in your organisation, towards the news about what happened to this alleged police informer?

MR NYALUKA: I would say what we did that's what all the people in the organisation expected us to do.

MR HONNORAT: Did you hear any voice of criticism, disapproval, censoring of your actions, from people higher than you in your organisation after the event?

MR NYALUKA: No, what I heard is that many people who were staying next to the deceased, were happy that an informer has been removed.

MR HONNORAT: Seeing the matter in retrospect, do you feel somewhat remorseful and willing to offer your apologies and extend your request for forgiveness to the family of the deceased?

MR NYALUKA: In all the things that I did, I feel very sorry, but I was forced by the situation to act as I did. As comrades we were fighting along with the struggle and I would like to ask the family of the deceased to forgive me.

MR HONNORAT: Did you put I mean before this house, this Honourable Committee today, all the facts that are connected to your participation in the assault which led to the death of the deceased in 1993? Did you mention all the relevant facts?

MR NYALUKA: I haven't left anything, I have explained to the Committee all the things that I did.

MR HONNORAT: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I have some questions, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you have just said that you have said everything that needs to be said. I would like to refer you to page 12 of the bundle, which is your application. Under number 9, paragraph A.1, it says that -

Is it you who wrote this application?

CHAIRPERSON: No, Ms Vilakazi, that is a translation of the original application, that was done by the Amnesty Committee office. So I don't know what language the applicant is using and I'm not sure whether the original application is in here, but if - I don't know where the original is, but you know perhaps it is better to refer to the original and just see what word he's used. Because this is a translation that was done in our office.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. Perhaps I could revisit the question and phrase it differently.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, can I, whilst you have raised that, on page 18 of the record there's a profile, a document headed "Profile", which seems to have been signed by this applicant and under that heading "Political Motive", the fourth line - or let's look at the third line -

So that seems to be also relevant to this question and that is why I raised the fact that this is a translation by our office and unfortunately few of us are able to read in the original language. Perhaps you must just see what word was used in the original amnesty application. At least on page 18 it seems as if it was a question of a police informer.

MS VILAKAZI: May I clarify. The reason why I'm asking this question is because even in the court record, in the judgment, in several areas it says - I cannot make specific reference at the moment, but the words which were used, were referred to, that the group said they were going to kill the witches.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, I'm not aware of that.

MR ZULU: Can I just clarify, Mr Chair, on that one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ZULU: In fact it's a literal translation of the songs that were sung by the group from the church to the deceased's house. They were slogans to the effect that "bulanan abatagati" you know, informers were referred to as "abatagati", not directly meaning they were actually the witches, but it was just a word used when an attack was about to be staged. So during evidence it transpired, Mr Chair, that there were songs and praises and slogans that were uttered, so the presiding judge requested that there should be an interpretation or a translation of those slogans.

CHAIRPERSON: And the translation that was given, the interpretation that was given at the court proceedings, used the term "witch"

MR ZULU: Witch. That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In the context of the songs.

MR ZULU: That's correct. And that word is now used here as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

ADV SANDI: Ja, that is on page 68, where they say the people shouting from the top of the roof, they were saying "we have come to kill the witches, the wizard, the informers".

MS VILAKAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, yes. So you say this was like - "abatagati", is that a generic term ...

MR ZULU: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... for persona non grata, the term undesirable people?

MR ZULU: That's correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Zulu.

MS VILAKAZI: As a follow-up to your discussion, Honourable Chair, my instructions are that at some stage there was talk in the neighbourhood that Mr Manoto was a witch in the literal sense. So it is on that basis that I wanted to get clarification from him as to whether he believed there was any talk of Mr Manoto being a witch, in the literal sense of ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I follow that, I follow that. This discussion was entirely premised on what is on the papers here, obviously that's a new dimension that you referred to, so perhaps you must deal with that one with this applicant.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you got information - although this is a translation of what you wrote in your application, I just want to get clarification from you. The information that you had about Mr Manoto, you got from Mr Zondo, is that correct?

MR NYALUKA: No, what I got is that he was an informer, that he was hated.

MS VILAKAZI: No the question is, the information that you had about Mr Manoto, you got it from Mr Zondo.

MR NYALUKA: I got it from comrade Hector.

MS VILAKAZI: So the group that was told that there's a person titled a witch, you were not told by Mr Zondo, is that what you are saying?

MR NYALUKA: I arrived in the meeting with comrade Hector, who has already briefed me that we're going to discuss about an informer. When I arrived there they had already discussed most of the things. I did see comrade Zondo in the church in the meeting, however he never said anything to me.

MS VILAKAZI: Honourable Chair, I have a problem. I think I would be greatly assisted if I could have a copy of the original application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. ...(no microphone)

MS VILAKAZI: ... is the one who completed the form.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no microphone)

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, did you complete the application form for amnesty? It is dated 23/04/96.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just show it to him, I don't think they've got the original.

MS VILAKAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him look at the whole document, Mr Honnorat.

MR ZULU: I understand, Mr Chair, it's not his direct handwriting, somebody was completing the form on his behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Zulu. Do you want that back, Ms Vilakazi? Just get it please.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you, Honourable Chair. The information I was looking for does not appear to be in the application, so I will not pursue that line of questioning anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: Mr Nyaluka, you said that you believed that Mr Manoto was an informer, is that correct?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you know for a fact that he was an informer?

MR NYALUKA: I didn't know it myself personally, but I got it from the church. His neighbours were also present in the meeting and those were the people who were alluding to the fact that he was an informer and that's where we got the whole information.

MS VILAKAZI: Thank you. Let us now go back to your evidence about the actual incident at the house of Mr Manoto. Did I hear you correctly that after a decision was taken at the meeting, part of the group went to Mr Manoto's house?

MR NYALUKA: What are you referring to?

MS VILAKAZI: You said that after the decision was taken that steps must be taken against Mr Manoto, I just want to get clarity, did I hear you correctly ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Excuse me for coming in here, but you're putting the wrong information to him. He said that a decision was taken that a group should go and speak to Mr Manoto.

MS VILAKAZI: That is what I was trying to verify.

Now was it the whole group that was at the church that was supposed to go and talk to him, or part of the group?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you able to say approximately how many ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, that can hardly be an answer to the question. The question ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just ask him if that's correct.

ADV SANDI: What is correct here? The question was, was it just part of the group or the entire group to go and talk to Mr Manoto?

MR NYALUKA: As I've said, there were other people. Four people were in front, but the others were following. When we arrived as a group we could see that he was fighting and that's where we started attacking him.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, Ms Vilakazi, I'm not sure whether that assists.

MS VILAKAZI: So from what you are saying, you were not part of the group that was supposed to go and talk to him, is that correct?

MR NYALUKA: No, I was with the group which left the church with all the other comrades and when we arrived we found him, he was throwing stones, he was on top of the roof.

MS VILAKAZI: So you joined the four that were already there. Do I understand you correctly?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, because they were also our comrades.

MS VILAKAZI: And then you decided to fight with him, is that correct?

MR NYALUKA: I would say he is the one who took a decision to fight because he's the one who started fighting, and we realised we couldn't speak to a person who was fighting and then we started fighting with him.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm putting it to you that it was not impossible for you as a large group to get Mr Manoto under control because he was alone, as you are saying he was alone on his roof. What is your comment?

MS VILAKAZI: I will deny that because I told you that he was fighting, I mean how are we going to talk to him if he was fighting?

MS VILAKAZI: I also put it to you that it is improbable that Mr Manoto alone sitting on top of the roof of his house, could have enough stones to throw at you for half an hour as you were saying. What is your comment?

MR NYALUKA: This is true because there was construction in progress in his yard and there were bundles of bricks in his yard. Those were the bricks he had on top of the roof, parked there and there were others on the ground.

MS VILAKAZI: But I'm putting it to you that you as a group were the ones who had access to the bricks that were enough to throw for half an hour and not Mr Manoto. What is your comment?

MR NYALUKA: We were throwing stones at each other, meaning our group and him. The deceased himself, he was throwing stones at us and we were throwing stones at him.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm also putting it to you that you had digressed from the decision that was taken at the church because you yourself have said the decision was that the group should go and talk to Mr Manoto. What is your comment?

MR NYALUKA: I would say I align myself with the decision taken in the church because the deceased was throwing stones at us when we were coming in a peaceful way to talk to him and if he started to do that, then we had to pick stones and start throwing back at him. As I've already explained, we got those stones or bricks in his yard. And at the time when I had to jump the wall to this comrade's house and get into the roof and try to break his roof, the other comrades already got into his yard and picked up stones and threw them at him.

MS VILAKAZI: I'm putting it to you that nothing prevented you from walking away from Mr Manoto, if he wasn't prepared to talk to you, but then you chose to fight. What is your comment?

MR NYALUKA: As I have explained, he fought with us, he never even wanted to know why we are coming to him place.

MS VILAKAZI: And I'm also putting it to you that you fought with him, not because it was the decision and that by fighting with him you dissociated yourself from the decision that was taken inside the church. I will repeat and say that he fought with us, he started the fight and we fought him back.

As I have explained before, when there were complaints they would be sent to us and we'll deal with these complaints. And most people who had complaints laid against them, they will always co-operate with us or sit and talk to him. And that was the process that we used, but this one we couldn't even get a chance to sit down and talk with him. He didn't even want to hear anything, he just started fighting and as an organisation we realised that we could not stand it where one person will fight against us.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. You've also said that you are the one who burnt Mr Manoto's car, is that correct?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, that's correct, that's correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And what was the reason for that?

MR NYALUKA: It's because we already - now we have found the police informer. I didn't only burnt he car, I also destroyed his roof. It's myself, Ndumiso, who burnt his car.

MS VILAKAZI: But it is not the car that was the informer and you went there to deal with the informer, why burn the car?

MR NYALUKA: I beg your pardon? The car belonged to the informer and as an organisation if someone has laid a complaint we would attend to it and if need be we will hit you and it's possible that we can hit you to death or if there are some other property like anything or your car, we also will burn your car or your house.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela, have you got any questions?

MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes. Mr Nyaluka, yesterday your co-applicant, Mr Peter Shabangu, said that the decision was taken that e group of old people would be elected to go and speak to Mr Manoto, is that correct or is that not right?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, I know about that. As I'm saying that when we were arriving there, now as a full house, we found that he was fighting with the others.

ADV BOSMAN: No, no, no, my question is, did you hear that the decision was that a group of elderly people should go and speak to Mr Manoto, not the young people, a group of elderly people? Did you hear that decision?

MR NYALUKA: As I've said, when that decision was taken I was outside. When we have a meeting as an organisation, usually we will enter the house to listen, but some people will stand outside to watch the police because the police will disrupt our meeting. So at that time I was outside guarding the police in order to alert the people that police are coming, if ever they come.

ADV BOSMAN: Okay, then you ...(intervention)

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, can I interrupt because I object to the question, it has not been factually correct. In my notes, Sir, I've got that after Mr Zondo spoke and then sat down, thereafter a certain man spoke and he suggested that they should elect an older person to go and speak to Mr Manoto. It was not a decision as such of the people gathered at the church, that that should take place. That is ...(indistinct) reading of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: It also seems that there was some lady who then spoke and said the people there don't know anything about politics and that informers are dealt with just in one way, they should be killed.

ADV BOSMAN: Chairperson, I was coming to ...(intervention)

MR HONNORAT: Yes, I dispute the fact that however, Mr Shabangu said that was the decision taken, it was just the contribution of one man he couldn't name because probably he didn't know and thereafter Mrs Gumede said what Mr Shabangu said she said.

ADV BOSMAN: I stand to be corrected, it was a suggestion, not a decision. Thank you, I apologise for that.

Did you hear a suggestion that a group of elderly people should go and speak? You said you were outside, you did not hear this.

MR NYALUKA: Saying that elderly people should be sent, that was discussed inside? As I've said, I was entering and coming out so that we were interchanging. People would go out to guard and others will come back in, so I might not have heard that.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you hear Mrs Gumede say that the women don't know how to deal with informers, Mr Manoto should be killed? - informers should be killed.

MR NYALUKA: I heard that word, but I won't be able to say who said those words. As I've said, also the neighbours of the deceased were present, they were present in number in church. I heard someone saying such words, but I can't say who said it. I can't say so and so said it, but it was an elderly woman.

ADV BOSMAN: I was under the impression that you heard the decision that you should go and speak to Mr Manoto. Is my impression correct, or did you hear this from someone else?

MR NYALUKA: No.

ADV BOSMAN: No, did you hear the decision being taken that you should go and speak?

MR NYALUKA: I was only present when we were leaving the church and we were going to Jacob Manoto.

ADV BOSMAN: So who told you that you were going there to speak to him and not to kill him?

MR NYALUKA: May you please repeat the question?

ADV BOSMAN: Who told you that you were going to speak to Mr Manoto? How did you know that you were going to speak to Mr Manoto?

MR NYALUKA: As I said, there were a lot of people in the meeting and people will speak during the meeting. Other people were of the view that we should go and speak to him and a decision was taken that we should go to his place.

ADV BOSMAN: I won't take that any further. Tell me, if you look at page 8 of the bundle, do you see there that it was said by Mr Thanjekwayo that Vusi Fakude, Sipho Tshabalala, Themba Zondo and Mandla Mbatha are innocent. Do you know those four people, Vusi Fakude, Sipho Tshabalala, Themba Zondo and Mandla Mbatha?

MR NYALUKA: Thanks for the question. As a member of the organisation, the only people I knew it was Pete Shabangu and Mandla Thanjekwayo. Those were the people whom I knew in the structures. Comrade Vusi Fakude, Zondo and Mandla Mbatha, they were staying on the lower section of the township. I didn't know them very well, I only saw them on that specific day.

ADV BOSMAN: Where did you see them?

MR NYALUKA: I saw them on the specific day, the day of the incident when we were going to the deceased place, at the time when we were leaving the church.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you see them at the deceased's place?

MR NYALUKA: No, when we get out we are a big group and we the youth were running in front, so I didn't actually get a chance to notice who was next to me while we were attacking at the deceased's place, I was doing exactly what I was doing. There were so many people, so I didn't notice them.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one thing about this meeting. Did you have a person chairing this meeting at the Lutheran Church Hall?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, there was.

ADV SANDI: Who was that?

MR NYALUKA: It was comrade Hector.

ADV SANDI: According to Mrs Manoto, when she gave evidence in court she said when you came to their house you were a group of about 200. Would you dispute that?

MR NYALUKA: As I explained that we were a very big group of the organisation, I wouldn't be able to estimate.

ADV SANDI: Would that figure of 200, would it be more-or-less the number, the size of the ...(intervention)

MR NYALUKA: I wouldn't be able to know. I wouldn't be able even to estimate the number of people who were present, but we were many.

ADV SANDI: Yes. When you approached the house of the family of Manoto, what sort of mood were you, were you walking quietly towards the house or were you singing songs of whatever nature or kind?

MR NYALUKA: We were just walking, ordinary walk, but we were singing slogans.

ADV SANDI: What did these slogans say?

MR NYALUKA: Those were the usual songs, slogans, all things like we're going to burn the informers and we'll deal with ...(indistinct). And as I've explained, people in Diepkloof already knew that if they had a complaint they will take it to us and we will take it to the comrade in the afternoon, to his school where we will all sit and discuss it.

ADV SANDI: Did you say these songs were about what, killing informers?

MR NYALUKA: The slogan was "an informer should be killed, we are going to "kanjemazana" and the witch should be killed, we are going to "kanjemazana".

ADV SANDI: Now do you still call that a peaceful way of approaching this man?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, because this is to involve the spirit of the people. That's what we normally sing and even if we go to meetings we sing such slogans.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but you had no appointment with this man, did you? Was an appointment set up to come and see him?

MR NYALUKA: No, we didn't have an appointment. What surprised us is it looked like he was ready because he was waiting for us on top of the roof. He didn't even want to hear what we're coming to say.

ADV SANDI: Being quite a large group, which one of you was going to be addressing him? Were you all going to be talking to him at the same time?

MR NYALUKA: There were people who were supposed to go inside and we will wait outside and if possible that he agrees to go with us to go and talk, we would take him together with his family to go to talk to him and if there's a warning to her that what kind of warning we will give to him.

ADV SANDI: Was it not dark at the time you came to his house?

MR NYALUKA: It was dark.

ADV SANDI: And I take it that many of you were young people, not so?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, most of us were ANC Youth League members and some of the people were his neighbours and those were a little bit older and they were the people who spoke at the meeting about Jacob Manoto.

ADV SANDI: Did you have elderly people as part of your group?

MR NYALUKA: I would say most of the elderly people remained behind and most people who could run, who were still young, joined the group.

ADV SANDI: One last question. What exactly were you going to be talking to Mr Manoto about?

MR NYALUKA: If he didn't fight with us people as I've already explained, some people will enter the house, speak to him and come out with him and if he doesn't understand we'll take him back to the venue where we were and we will sit, give him a hearing and tell him his neighbours are saying about him and we will ask him to respond, telling him that we are hearing from them that he is an informer and he will have to answer. And if he says no, he doesn't know anything about it, maybe we would have warned him to say "We don't want to hear anything like that, that you are an informer", and then send him home.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you an ordinary member of the ANC Youth League?

MR NYALUKA: I was in the Crime Committee. As I've said, all reports in the townships will be sent to my home at my place, to report to me and I will take it to the comrades in the church after school. They will come early in the morning to report to me and even at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and even my mother knows that. She will come at home to find people are there to lay a complaint and I will take the complaints to the meeting and to the other comrades, specifically other people like comrade Hector, and then we'll meet as comrades and discuss the issue. And if there's a need to go and collect some witnesses or other people to explain something, we will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you were an ordinary member of the ANC Youth League, you were not in the leadership? You were not in the Executive Committee, for example?

MR NYALUKA: I was just an ordinary member.

CHAIRPERSON: When you got to this meeting it was already in progress, is that right?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, it was in progress, people were discussing things.

CHAIRPERSON: You were in and out, you were not sitting inside the meeting throughout the proceedings, would that be right?

MR NYALUKA: I would go in to listen, when I see cars passing I will run outside to see what's happening and we will interchange, people will go in and others go out.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak at that meeting at all?

MR NYALUKA: No, I didn't say anything.

CHAIRPERSON: And when the people left the hall, you went along with the group?

MR NYALUKA: Yes, when the whole organisation gets out, as a member I joined them.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not leading the group, you simply joined the group, would that be right?

MR NYALUKA: I would say just I was in the middle of the group. We were so many and the road was full.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Honnorat, any re-examination?

MR HONNORAT: No re-examination, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Nyaluka, you are excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn and reconvene in 30 minutes time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Honnorat, who is the next applicant?

MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, the next applicant is will be number 3 on the list, Themba Patrick Zondo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Zondo, do you hear the interpretation on your headset?

PATRICK THEMBA ZONDO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Honnorat, is it you?

MR HONNORAT: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I will lead Mr Zondo in a slightly different way, by reading through his affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: And there will be elucidatory questions asked by myself whilst leading him on the affidavit. And the Chairman and the Honourable Panel are advised to turn to page 31(b) of the bundle. We'll start with paragraph number 5, because that is actually relevant to these proceedings, to this hearing.

Mr Zondo, it's written in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of your application for amnesty that -

Now on the question of the deceased not being on talking terms with you, were you living in the neighbourhood of the deceased at the time of the incident, which took place in April 1993?

MR ZONDO: I was living next to the deceased's home.

MR HONNORAT: Yes. You refer to Mr Manoto being generally perceived to be an informer of the SAP of the former government. Now at the time that the incident took place, leading to the eventual killing of Mr Manoto, were you persuaded of the fact that he was a political informer of the previous regime?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I believed in that.

MR HONNORAT: Now what was your relation to any political organisation or liberation movement involved in the struggle against that regime at the time?

MR ZONDO: I was a supporter of the ANC.

MR HONNORAT: As a supporter of the ANC, how you personally perceived police informers, as Mr Manoto was alleged to have been?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did perceive him as an informer of the SAP.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, and as a police informer, as an informer of the SAP, how you generally felt towards him, as a supporter of the ANC at the time?

MR ZONDO: I did not like him.

MR HONNORAT: What is the reason why you didn't like police informers of the previous regime, as a supporter of the ANC in those days?

MR ZONDO: At that time an informer was not wanted in the community, he was someone who would be attacked and killed.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said in paragraph 6 -

Now in your personal opinion and also considering the fact that you were an immediate neighbour of the deceased, would you refer his surrounding himself with all these protective devices, to other than fear related to political reason? For instance, jealousy of the neighbours, fear of burglaries and other things.

MR ZONDO: He did not do this for reasons that you have cited, such as jealousy, but he knew that as a person who collaborated with the police anything could happen to him at any time.

MR HONNORAT: Then you said in paragraph 7 -

Now how did you come to know about this particular incident?

MR ZONDO: That was something that was discussed in the community and I learnt about it when I returned from work, that Mr Manoto had sent police to Mr Tshabalala's home in regards to alleged firearms that were supposedly at Mr Tshabalala's home.

MR HONNORAT: Who informed you about that?

MR ZONDO: As a person who would normally be away from work I would get such information when I return from work from the residents of the township and they did inform me that this had taken place at Tshabalala's place. Even my mother informed me when I arrived at home that Bonagile, that is Mr Manoto, had actually sent the police to Sipho's home.

MR HONNORAT: Did you go and find out at Sipho's home what happened there?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said on paragraph 8 -

Why did you feel at the particular time that perhaps there were better ways of dealing with the deceased than killing him?

MR ZONDO: In the struggle we normally did not take just take hasty decisions without informing the relevant people of the matter and discussing it with them. As a community in the township there were various committees, Street Committees, Crime Committees and there would also be ANC and the Youth League of the ANC.

As it had been discussed that Mr Manoto was an informer and some people had reported to that effect, I suggested that the Street Committee and the Civic Association and the elders in the community be informed and the matter be discussed with them. That was on the 19th, and that meeting was supposed to take place on the 21st.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, then you said in paragraph 9 that -

Can you inform this Honourable Panel what was your contribution towards that meeting, that taking place of that meeting.

MR ZONDO: On that meeting it was meant to inform members of the community, the Civic Organisation and the Street Committee, as to Mr Manoto's situation, that he was an informer. At that point everyone knew that an informer was not wanted in the township, he was supposed to be killed because he contributed to the harassment of the community and also he would disturb the movements of the people involved in the struggle.

MR HONNORAT: Did you actively contribute towards convening people towards the meeting at the Lutheran Church, on the 21st of April?

MR ZONDO: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: On doing that, was there any particular weight attached to you to the importance of discussing the question of a police informer being present right in your neighbourhood? On convening this meeting, in helping convening the meeting.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat that question.

MR HONNORAT: When ...(indistinct) convened the meeting on the 21st of April, was there weight attached to you to the issue I mean of a police informer being allegedly present in the midst of your neighbourhood?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did regard it as important to discuss that.

MR HONNORAT: Now when the meeting was convened on the 21st of April 1993 at the local Lutheran Church, were you of the firm conviction that the deceased was indeed a police informer?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I was convinced of that.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you say that -

My question is, if the fate was decided in terms of the killing of the deceased at the highest level of affiliation, would they have been satisfied with the decision?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I would have been satisfied.

MR HONNORAT: So is it correct then to say that you main preoccupation was that whatever decision was determined, it should be determined by people at a higher level, including the elders? Whether it was killing or any other form of measure adopted against the deceased. Is it correct, I mean, on the basis of your previous answer, that was your position?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat that, I do not understand.

MR HONNORAT: Is it correct then I mean to say on the basis of your previous answer, that your main preoccupation was that whatever decision was taken concerning the deceased and his family, including the killing of the deceased, you main preoccupation was that it should be endorsed by people at a higher level, with the participation of the elders even if that included the killing, actually involve the killing of the deceased.

MR ZONDO: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you say -

Now on a personal level, would you say that the decision was taken eventually at the meeting, at the end of the meeting, that the deceased should be killed, as a police informer?

MR ZONDO: As it's already been mentioned that Anna Gumede said the person should be dealt with effectively. At that point the discussions were still going on between the Street Committees, Civic Associations and people who were in the hall. And at that time there was a heated dispute and the meeting was becoming uncontrollable and she uttered the words that he should be killed, and that was the feeling of the people who were in the hall as well.

MR HONNORAT: So it was your personal opinion that the meeting ended with the decision of the people who went out to kill the deceased? That was the practical decision I mean, taken at the end of the meeting.

MR ZONDO: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: Personally, had you any objection to the decision?

MR ZONDO: No.

MR HONNORAT: Can you motivate the reason why you were satisfied with the decision?

MR ZONDO: As explained before, as a community in that township a person who was an informer was very dangerous to the community at large as well as to the organisations that operated in the township.

MR HONNORAT: Yes. Did you personally perceive that since a decision at a higher level of affiliation or with the involvement of the elders, was no longer possible with the uncontrollable mob? Did you personally perceive that I mean, it was okay I mean, for them I mean, to carry out what they were intended doing, even I mean, without the approval of the elders or a direct involvement of them or people at a higher level of affiliation?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I saw it as appropriate to proceed.

MR HONNORAT: Okay. Then you said -

Personally, did you feel that once the decision was taken by this mob, that you personally wished to dissuade them from carrying out the action and you felt that at every cost the elders must be involved or a higher level of affiliation must decide the matter without them doing so?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat the question.

MR HONNORAT: Yes. That at the time that the uncontrollable mob went away, did you personally feel that you needed or that you would have liked to dissuade them from carrying out their actions and you personally felt that you should try or you would have liked to try them not to carry out without the elders or a higher level of affiliation approving the act of killing?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Honnorat, perhaps one would have to try and find a more neutral way of asking the question.

What was your feeling - let us put the question this way, what was your feeling at the time this mob went of the hall, moving towards the house of Mr Manoto? How did you feel about what was happening at that point in time?

MR ZONDO: As a person who also did not approve of the informers I felt that what they were doing was appropriate.

MR HONNORAT: Then you said -

Did you pass by the deceased's house seeing the group gathered at the deceased's house on your way I mean, to your fiancé’s home?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did pass that way. I also wanted to be part of that group, but for several reasons, such as you could be arrested if you had been seen in such a situation, that was the reason why I decided I should just go to Debbie's home because after all I was a neighbour to Mr Manoto.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, the word "in frustration I proceeded", what frustrated you?

MR ZONDO: I was not sure whether to proceed and take part in the attack or just leave. I'm not sure that I'm responding to your question.

ADV BOSMAN: I wanted to know why you felt frustrated. Do you know what the word "frustrated" means?

MR ZONDO: Please explain it to me.

ADV BOSMAN: Don't you know what the word means?

MR ZONDO: I may have a different interpretation because as far as I know "frustration" stems from wanting to do something but you are, for one reason or the other prevented from doing it.

ADV BOSMAN: That's is my understanding too. So what frustrated you?

MR ZONDO: It is for the reason that I wanted to be part of the group that attacked the house, but for fear that I would be easily recognised as one of the people who attacked, because I was a neighbour, therefore I would be arrested easily. That is why I had to dissociate myself and leave.

MR HONNORAT: Then you say -

Now I think you have basically explained the reason why. Is the reason the one mentioned to you, that you could have easily been identified known as a neighbour and you might land in trouble?

MR ZONDO: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: You say -

Now when, I mean, you saw the crowd assembling by the house of the deceased, did you know as a matter of certainty, or foresaw as a most likely possibility that indeed the attack would result in the deceased's death as a police informer?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did. I did realise that as they were on their way to attack his home, he was going to be killed.

MR HONNORAT: Now you have said that you live opposite to the, just next I mean, to the deceased's house, was it possible for you I mean, to go I mean, to the house and call for help on behalf of the deceased, if you wanted to do so?

MR ZONDO: If I had that desire to help him I could have because we had a telephone at home, but I did not want to help him because of his activities as an informer.

MR HONNORAT: So are you telling this Honourable Panel that you purposely omitted to lend assistance to the deceased, your actual neighbour, although it was very easy for you to do so?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did so intentionally.

ADV BOSMAN: What would have happened if you did call for help for the deceased?

MR ZONDO: I would have become, or I would have been associated with him as an informer.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Honnorat.

MR HONNORAT: Do you believe that if you had called from your house for the police to intervene, the chance was there that they could have saved the deceased's life?

MR ZONDO: Yes, they could have spared his life had I done so.

MR HONNORAT: Now paragraph 12 deals basically with you have heard about how the murder was effected whilst you were listening to the co-proceedings. Now in paragraph 13 you said -

Do you admit that it was easy for you to come to the rescue of her family during the attack, if you had willing to do so?

MR ZONDO: Will you please repeat that question.

MR HONNORAT: Do you confirm the fact that it was indeed easy for you to come to the rescue of the Manoto family, the widow's family during the attack, if you had been willing to do so? - to come to their rescue.

MR ZONDO: Yes, it would have been easy if I was willing to do so.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Zondo, I don't understand. You said if you did so you would have been killed. Could it have been easy then for you to do so?

MR HONNORAT: It is my - I object to the question on the ...(intervention)

MR ZONDO: Maybe we did not understand each other well.

MR HONNORAT: I object to the question on the factual basis that he just said that he would have been associated as an informer. He didn't say that he would have been killed, I mean, necessarily, I mean if he had done so.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct) in the context of all the evidence that would have been the result, Mr - your name's just slipped my mind for a moment.

MR ZULU: Mr Honnorat.

ADV BOSMAN: ... Mr Honnorat. I will pose the question differently.

If you were seen as an informer, what would have happened to you, Mr Zondo?

MR ZONDO: As I explained before, such a person was not wanted, therefore the same fate would have happened to me as it did happen to Mr Manoto.

ADV BOSMAN: So would it have been easy for you to call for help for Mr Manoto?

MR ZONDO: It would have been easy for me to do so, but because of the fear that should I do so, I may be associated with him. I decided not to call for help.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. You may proceed.

ADV SANDI: I'm trying to understand this.

But is it not - the reason that you did not pick up your phone at home for example, and contact the police and tell them about what was about to happen, that's not the reason as I understand your evidence, that's not the reason why you did not contact the police, it's because you agreed with what the mob was about to do. You said you felt that what they're going to do to Mr Manoto was appropriate.

MR ZONDO: I did state so. When I was questioned on whether I could have assisted him if I was willing, I responded to the effect that I could have if I had been willing to do so, but because I did not want to associate myself with his activities I did not do so.

ADV SANDI: Yes, it was not a question of you being afraid of the consequences of contacting the police and telling that Mr Manoto is about to be killed, it was just a matter of you not wanting to do it at all, you agreed with what the mob was going to do.

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did associate myself with the mob.

CHAIRPERSON: But would it have been possible for you to use your telephone, the facility that you had at home, to phone the police without the comrades knowing that you actually made the telephone call?

MR ZONDO: I would have been able to do so, but because I did not want to do that, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, if you had wanted to make an anonymous call to the police for example, or a call to the police under circumstances where it would not become known that you actually called them, it would have been easy for you to have done that?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I could have done that but I didn't want to do it. As I've explained before, that was something that would have associated me with the informer. It is something I did not want to do. I felt that the action that was to be taken against Mr Manoto was appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Honnorat.

MR HONNORAT: So you said you associated yourself with the action of the mob, even from a distance and by omitting to come to the rescue of the Manoto family. In doing so, were you inspired by ill feelings, personal feelings of grudge and ...(indistinct) towards the deceased and his family?

MR ZONDO: No, I had no personal grudge against them. The only thing that I hated was that Mr Manoto was a police informer.

MR HONNORAT: Were you inspired by the prospect of any financial gain?

MR ZONDO: No, we were not promised any financial gain.

MR HONNORAT: Now would you like at this stage to offer your apology and seek forgiveness from the family of the deceased for your participation in convening the meeting, which eventually resulted in the decision to kill the deceased and your omission to come to the rescue of the deceased and his family at a time and circumstances which allowed to do so quite easily? Would you like I mean, to do that and use this opportunity for that?

MR ZONDO: I am remorseful for what happened to Mr Manoto now, but at the time I regarded it as appropriate. But in retrospect I do realise that the loss of their father, the head of the family, was very bad for them and I would request them to forgive me for my part.

MR HONNORAT: At the time of the incident, when you convened the meeting, helped convene the meeting on the 21st, when you omitted to give support, assistance, to the family of the deceased, did you in good faith believe that such an action and such omission were done in furtherance of a political objective to strengthen the course of the struggle at the time in the townships?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I did believe so.

MR HONNORAT: Now have you made a full and frank disclosure of all your participation, both in a positive sense of acting, in a negative sense of omitting from acting concerning the incident which led to the killing of the deceased on the relevant date, to the house today? Have you made I mean, such a full and frank disclosure?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat that.

MR HONNORAT: Have you made a full and frank disclosure of all your participation positively, by way of action and negatively, by way of omitting from acting on the date of the incident which resulted in the killing of the deceased, to I mean this house?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I have disclosed everything.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I would just ask one question, Chairperson, based on the judgment in the trial, on page 100. I would ask the legal representative to show it to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which line is it?

MS VILAKAZI: The very last paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: The last paragraph, yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mrs Manoto said that accused 5 was one of the persons who had descended from the roof into the dining-room, hauled her out and handed her over to accused number 6.

Does this accused number 5 refer to you? Were you accused number 5 at the trial?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I was.

MS VILAKAZI: Now what is your comment about the finding of the judge in that respect? The fact that Mrs Manoto said you were there and you took her out of the house and handed her over to number 6?

MR ZONDO: I dispute that.

MS VILAKAZI: I would have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Zondo, did you know Ms Gumede before the incident on the 21st of April 1993?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I grew up in the area, she was older than me.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, you've just testified that you heard the information that a meeting was held on the 19th of April 1993, when the deceased was condemned to death as an informer, is that correct?

MR ZONDO: There are two dates, the 19th and the 21st.

MR MASAGELA: I'm referring to the meeting of the 19th.

MR ZONDO: Please repeat that question.

MR MASAGELA: You've just said that you got information that in the meeting of the 19th of April 1993, the information was that - I mean in that meeting it was resolved that the deceased was condemned to death as an informer.

MR ZONDO: Yes, the decision had been taken, but because of certain procedures in the struggle, that the youth cannot take all the decisions, there were Street Committees, there were Civic Associations and those were the people who had to be contacted and a meeting be held with them as to what to do, how to proceed.

MR MASAGELA: And you have also testified that it is only, I mean the decision as to whether the informer should be killed, that is Mr Manoto, should be killed, can only be taken by people at a higher level. Is that correct?

MR ZONDO: It should have been taken at a higher level.

MR MASAGELA: And you've also said further that - actually you said in your way that everybody in that meeting was of the opinion that Mr Manoto should be killed.

MR ZONDO: That is correct.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, does Mrs Gumede have the authority to tell the people in that meeting that Mr Manoto should be killed?

MR ZONDO: I would not say that she had the authority, because everyone, a lot of people contributed in the meeting, everyone expressed their opinion as to what steps should be taken against the informer. So I cannot say that Ms Anna Gumede had to take that decision as to what should be done to him.

MR MASAGELA: So as far as you're concerned, the decision as to whether Mr Manoto should be killed can only be taken by people in the higher authority?

MR ZONDO: It could have been taken by the people who were attending the meeting.

MR MASAGELA: And Mr Zondo, you just said that Ms Gumede criticised the conciliatory approach adopted by the elders, can you just clarify as to what you mean.

MR ZONDO: I mean to say that she regarded their approach as too cautious, she had an opinion that Mr Manoto should just be killed.

MR MASAGELA: Ms Gumede what did she say? In her exact words, can you just tell us, what did she say in that meeting?

MR ZONDO: If I remember correctly she said some of the elder people in the meeting did not know anything about the struggle.

MR MASAGELA: When you proceeded to Mr Manoto's house, that's from the church building there, did you got there on instruction - did you go there after you'd been instructed by anyone, or you just - people just decided to go there? Did anyone instruct the people, the mob there, to go to Mr Manoto's house?

MR ZONDO: After the opinion expressed by Ms Anna, it became easy for everyone else to proceed there because everyone had that opinion, they associated themselves with the opinion that he should be killed. So when she uttered those words, it made it easy for the people to proceed to that house and kill him.

MR MASAGELA: And you have also testified that you personally, you didn't have any problem proceeding to Mr Manoto's house, is that correct?

MR ZONDO: That is correct.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Zondo, my instructions are that Ms Gumede was present in that meeting, she said after she realised that there was no understanding between the youth and the elderly people in the church, she stood up and said "I am now leaving because you cannot resolve this problem". And then she also said "I'm going to work tomorrow and then we will see what to do with this matter", and then she left the building. Do you have any comment on that?

MR ZONDO: I dispute that.

MR MASAGELA: My instructions are also that Ms Gumede will deny having said that the youth should proceed to Mr Manoto's house and to deal with him accordingly.

MR ZONDO: We have come before this Committee to tell the truth, I would not come here and lie about someone because then I would be lying to the Committee.

MR MASAGELA: Last question, Mr Zondo. Would you agree with me that even if Ms Gumede didn't say anything in that meeting, people were just going to proceed to Mr Manoto's house anyway?

MR ZONDO: Yes, I would agree with you.

MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Masagela. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do, thank you.

Mr Zondo, on page 33 of the bundle, paragraph 11 from line 4, at the end you stated -

Would you agree with this statement?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat that.

MS THABETHE: Can you also read with me on paragraph 11 of your statement. Right.

Is that a correct reflection of what I've read, of your opinion?

MR ZONDO: Yes. As I've already mentioned, I did not want to be seen with them because I was a neighbour. That would have prompted that I be arrested easily. That was the reason why I thought I should take a different route.

MS THABETHE: So you did not take part in the murder, is that correct? Or the assault of the family, correct?

MR ZONDO: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: Also, you were not at the scene when Mr Manoto was murdered or when the family was assaulted, is that correct?

MR ZONDO: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: And also, you clearly dissociate yourself with the action that took place at that scene, as you've put it in paragraph 11, is that correct?

MR ZONDO: I was with them in spirit because I felt that what they were doing was appropriate ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Sorry, can I cut you just there. What I'm trying to understand is the action that you are applying for amnesty for, you say you were there at the meeting, so you're associating yourself with the decision that was taken in the meeting. Or to put it in another way, with conspiring to kill Mr Manoto, in the meeting, isn't that so?

MR ZONDO: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: Right. But you are not associating yourself with the murder of Mr Manoto and the assault of his family?

CHAIRPERSON: Now you see, Ms Thabethe, that's where you make the mistake, you used the term "dissociate" when you were summarising the sentence that you read out to the applicant. He's not saying he dissociated himself ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: He says he did not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... he says he did not associate himself. Let's just get this -

... or be associated.

MS THABETHE: Isn't that dissociating?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, he says he didn't want to be associated, in other words he didn't want to be identified. And that's what he was trying to explain to you. He was there in spirit, but he wasn't there in presence, in physical presence, simply because he would have exposed himself to arrest, to easy identification and arrest because he was a well known person there, he was the next-door neighbour. So that's why he didn't want to be physically seen to be with this group, but in spirit he was. In other words, his intention was similar.

MS THABETHE: So he would still be liable for murder because in spirit he was there ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what he says. He said he associated himself with the actions.

MS THABETHE: Okay. Then it means I did not understand that. In that case I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV SANDI: Yes, just one.

Mr Zondo, I get the impression - when I read paragraph 11, the impression I have is that initially you did not want this mob or this crowd of people to take an action against Mr Manoto. Is that impression correct?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat.

ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that initially whilst you were at the Lutheran Church Hall, you did not want this group to take any action against Mr Manoto? Is that impression correct?

MR ZONDO: Please repeat.

ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that initially whilst you were at the Lutheran Church Hall, you did not want this group to take any action against Mr Manoto? Would that be correct?

MR ZONDO: I did want them to go and attack Mr Manoto.

ADV SANDI: Ja, you see the reason why I'm asking the question is, the first line on paragraph 11 says -

Then you go on to say -

MR ZONDO: That is true, the decision had already become obviously, that everyone was intent on going out to kill the deceased.

ADV SANDI: But I thought it was part of your evidence-in-chief that you would have preferred a situation where this matter was dealt with by elderly members of the community and that was the reason why you were trying to control this crowd, you were trying to talk to these people.

MR ZONDO: That is also true. The decision should have come from the Civic Association and the elders, but because of the chaotic nature of the meeting, it then became impossible to do so, but the decision came out of the meeting and I associated myself with that decision.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but the manner the decision was taken at the end of these discussions, was not the normal way in which discussion on such - it was not the normal way in which decisions on such matters are taken, didn't you say that? Usually elderly members of the community and responsible leaders of the organisation would be involved in the taking of such decisions, especially if a person is to be killed.

MR ZONDO: That is true, but as I've explained the ANC Youth League, the Street Committee, the Civic Association and other members of the community were present and the house, the forum itself, had decided that and it was beyond the control of the other people or the other leaders who were present.

ADV SANDI: But one would also ask why were you so quick to go along with the emotions of this mob, this uncontrollable rowdy mob, as you've put it in your statement? Why would you be so quick to go along with them and agree with them?

MR ZONDO: Because I also believe that an informer should be killed.

ADV SANDI: You say you did not do anything to prevent the group from taking action against Mr Manoto, because of his activities, what were his activities? What activities are you referring to there?

MR ZONDO: In most instances we knew that he was an informer. For example, the case where he sent police to Mr Tshabalala, that confirmed the suspicions that he was an informer. That event of sending police to the Tshabalala home confirmed the suspicions that we held already, that he was an informer.

ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that no action whatsoever was taken by you in support of the group? You had no contribution whatsoever in the events that led to the killing of Mr Manoto?

MR ZONDO: Please clarify that question. Do you mean the physical assault on the family or what are you referring to?

ADV SANDI: What act was carried out by you in support of your feeling that Mr Manoto should be killed if he is an informer? You didn't do anything positive, did you?

MR ZONDO: I would say it would have been easy for me to assist him by use of the telephone, but because I associated myself with the people who attacked him, I did not do so.

ADV SANDI: What I mean is you were not part of that group, you didn't go there.

MR ZONDO: As I've explained earlier, the reason that I did not involve myself was that I would have been easily identified because I was a neighbour and expose myself to arrest.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Honnorat?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Just one question, Mr Chairperson.

After the event, after the killing of the deceased, did you hear from any comrades you met at your level or at a higher level of affiliation, words or actions of disapproval, censuring, criticism of the act which was committed on that night of the 21st of April?

MR ZONDO: No.

MR HONNORAT: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Yes, Mr Zondo, you are excused, thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, who is the next applicant?

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Fakude, Mr Charles Fakude.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Fakude, I want you to please stand and give your full names for the record.

CHARLES FAKUDE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Honnorat?

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Mr Fakude, at the time of the incident which resulted in the killing of Jacob Manoto, in 1993, were you an actual member or a supporter of a political organisation, liberation movement involved in the struggle, committee, which had a relation to a political organisation or liberation movement at the time?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: Can you explain what was your position.

MR FAKUDE: The ANC.

MR HONNORAT: Were you part of any committee?

MR FAKUDE: I was a member of the Street Committee.

MR HONNORAT: Do you know the deceased, Mr Jacob Manoto?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, he was my neighbour.

MR HONNORAT: Did you attend any meeting on the 21st of April 1993, at the Lutheran Church in Diepkloof, in Zone 5?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, that's correct.

MR HONNORAT: Can you say anything which happened at the meeting as you saw it, or any participation on your part at that meeting?

MR FAKUDE: I did participate in the meeting. The meeting was called so that the Street Committee and the elders could resolve the problem with regards to Mr Manoto.

MR HONNORAT: What was the problem?

MR FAKUDE: The problem was that Mr Manoto was an informer.

MR HONNORAT: How was the problem solved?

MR FAKUDE: A person in his condition was punished the same way that he was punished, by death.

MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of Mr Manoto, did you see anything suspicious which made you believe, before the incident, prior to the date of the incident and prior to the date of the meeting at the Lutheran Church, that he was in fact a police informer?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, there were instances.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, can you tell us about that.

MR FAKUDE: In most instances Mr Manoto did not associate himself with the community, instead the police used to frequent his home, their vehicles would be parked outside his home. And it then happened that later on he sent the police to go to the Tshabalala home to search for firearms.

MR HONNORAT: As far as your participation in the incident which led to the eventual killing of Mr Manoto at Mr Manoto's house, what contribution did you make?

MR FAKUDE: If it had not been established that he was an informer he would have not suffered the fate that he did ...(intervention)

MR HONNORAT: Wait one moment, the question was, the incident which resulted in his killing, at the house of Manoto, now are to the house of Manoto, did you participate in those events which led to his killing and if so, in which manner?

MR FAKUDE: It was permitting the comrades to use my yard to gain access into the Manoto house and also that I assisted in them gaining that access, but I did not really physically assault him. Moreover, I could have assisted Mr Manoto by telephoning for help, but I decided against it because of what he was. That is the role that I played.

MR HONNORAT: So was your reason for permitting the comrades to use the yard of your own property to gain access to the house of the deceased, based on the fact that he was a police informer and that you hated him for that? Was that your reason?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: When you were permitting them to gain access to his house, did you know that that would probably result in his death or might result in his death, considering the large size of the group?

MR FAKUDE: I knew that already, from the moment that they left the meeting, proceeding to his home. It was known to me as to what was going to happen to him.

MR HONNORAT: And did you reconcile yourself willingly and supportively with that almost foregone conclusion, as you put it?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct, because if I did not associate myself I would not have also given the testimony that he was indeed an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you give that testimony, at the meeting?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I was the second person to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you allowed them to use your yard but you also helped them to gain access to the property of Mr Manoto. Is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In which way did you help them to gain that access, apart from allowing them to use your yard?

MR FAKUDE: I opened the window so that they could use it to get onto the roof.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the only way that they would have been able to get onto the roof?

MR FAKUDE: There was no other way because his wall was very high and it has a razor wire on top.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Honnorat?

MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of the deceased, did you see him usually locked inside the house, with the house locked and well protected?

MR FAKUDE: Please repeat that question.

MR HONNORAT: As a neighbour of the deceased, Mr Manoto, did you see him usually with the house door locked and well protected by things?

MR FAKUDE: As I mentioned before, he distanced himself from the community because his gate was always locked and his family would always be inside the yard, locked in.

MR HONNORAT: Now was there any chance of gaining access also via the property of accused number 2, Sipho Victor Tshabalala?

MR FAKUDE: No, it is too far.

MR HONNORAT: Were there any family members of yours present at your house and your yard at the time of the incident?

MR FAKUDE: No, there were no members of my family in the yard, but it was just the other people in the community who were present.

MR HONNORAT: Now would it have been easy for a whole group of comrades to gain access of the deceased without your assistance of letting them in through the yard and opening the window so that they could get onto the roof? Would it have been easy for a huge group of people to do so without that assistance?

MR FAKUDE: No, because he had a burglar gate which was chained, the walls were also very high.

MR HONNORAT: Now is there anything else you want to say about your participation in the incident of that relevant date, which you haven't said so far to the Honourable Panel?

MR FAKUDE: Yes. I want to state that I am very deeply sorry for what happened to my neighbours. I have spent a lot of time in prison and I have thought about this matter and will request the family to forgive me. What prompted this whole thing was the situation at the time, an informer was not wanted in the township.

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairman, if I can just have one word with the applicant concerning his application, because it was brought to me at the time that the applicant has been actually I mean, to the table?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR HONNORAT: I'm indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you just switch off the microphones.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions for this applicant, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't have the headset on. What is the position, Mr Honnorat?

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You've got no further questions, alright. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: I have some questions, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Fakude, your house is, or your house was at the time of the incident, in the immediate neighbourhood of that of Mr Manoto, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And your house and Mr Manoto's house were joined, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And Mr Manoto had a wall surrounding his house, he built a wall to surround his house, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And at some stage you had a dispute with him concerning that that wall encroached on your property, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: How did you relate with Mr Manoto generally?

MR FAKUDE: We were on good terms because we discussed this matter because when I used to close my gate, Mr Manoto complained that it made a noise for him, ultimately I ended up not being able to close my gate. But we discussed this matter and he even offered me help, he gave me a pole with which I fixed my gate.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you have good relations at all times, particularly after the incident concerning the wall and your gate?

MR FAKUDE: We were not very close except that we would greet and ask after one another's health, because as I explained earlier he did not really associate himself with the people.

MS VILAKAZI: But you have just said that you used to greet each other and talk to each other, wouldn't you say that's relating well?

MR FAKUDE: We were no longer able to discuss matters of general interest as neighbours, our only interaction was limited to just greeting. That is why I say our relationship was not that good.

MS VILAKAZI: You have said in your testimony that Mr Manoto was an informer, is that what you knew or what you were made to believe?

MR FAKUDE: It was something that I was informed of and I was convinced of it because I used to witness police vehicles parked at his gate and moreover, when he sent the police to the Tshabalala home he confirmed my suspicions that yes, indeed he was an informer, because of his closeness to the police.

MS VILAKAZI: How many times did you see police vehicles parked at his place?

MR FAKUDE: Several times, because when I return from work I will see these cars parked and sometimes I will see the police - I would see him taking the police to the gate. So I used to see these cars often.

MS VILAKAZI: Did they go to his place during the day?

MR FAKUDE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS VILAKAZI: Did the police go to Mr Manoto's house during the day?

MR FAKUDE: Normally they would be there during the day, but they sometimes, once in a while maybe you would see one vehicle parked at night, but I would normally see them during the day.

MS VILAKAZI: So he was freely relating with the police, he was not hiding that fact, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, he was free.

MS VILAKAZI: Is that not inconsistent with the behaviour of an informer?

MR FAKUDE: I beg your pardon?

MS VILAKAZI: I mean relating freely with the police, is that not inconsistent with the behaviour of an informer?

MR FAKUDE: He did not hide his close relationship with the police. At that time we would hold meetings at different houses in the community because we did not have a venue for our meetings, but there was never a meeting held at his home and he was very open and free in his relationship with the police.

MS VILAKAZI: But you have not answered my question. My question was, the conduct of Mr Manoto relating freely with the police, not hiding his relations with the police, is that not inconsistent with the conduct of an informer?

MR FAKUDE: I do not know because he himself as a community member, he was aware that if you were close to the police and you were seen to be close to the police, what implications that has.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you at any stage alert him to the fact that his relations with the police are inconsistent with the wishes of the community?

MR FAKUDE: He was the sort of person that there was no way I could have discussed such a matter with him.

MS VILAKAZI: Do you mean to say that he was not approachable?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: I see. Now talking about the date of the incident, you were at the meeting - I'm talking about the 21st of April 1993, were you at the meeting at the Lutheran Church?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I was present.

MS VILAKAZI: What decision was taken concerning Mr Manoto?

MR FAKUDE: A decision was taken to go call him and return him to the church, but on arrival at his home he was in a fighting mood and therefore the fight broke out between him and the comrades.

MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying the decision was not to kill him, but to call him to the meeting?

MR FAKUDE: He was supposed to be fetched and be brought to the meeting and answer to these allegations and the decision would have been taken thereafter, but when people arrived at his home he started fighting with the comrades.

MS VILAKAZI: Who was sent to collect him, or who was supposed to collect him?

MR FAKUDE: We elected certain people to go out and fetch him and it became apparent that we as the elders were not taking this matter as urgently as we should and the comrades suggested that he should be fetched and that is when everybody went out.

MS VILAKAZI: So are you saying the whole group that was attending the meeting was the one who was supposed to go and collect Mr Manoto?

MR FAKUDE: That is so.

MS VILAKAZI: Then you said in your testimony that you knew already when you left the meeting, that the action that was going to be taken would result in his death.

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: So why did you think that the action would result in his death, if the purpose was to go and take him in order to talk to him?

MR FAKUDE: I say this because of the manner in which the comrades left as they went to fetch him.

MS VILAKAZI: Now arriving at the place of Mr Manoto, the impression that I gained from your testimony is that you went to your place, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: So you did not go into Mr Manoto's house or yard, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: I went into my own yard, not his.

MS VILAKAZI: Why did you not go into Mr Manoto's house, because you were part of the group that went to take him out?

MR FAKUDE: It was becoming dark and I wanted to light up the house so that I could check and see if the stones that were being thrown at Mr Manoto's house did not damage my own house.

MS VILAKAZI: Are you saying when you arrived there he was, the stones were already being thrown around?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Does that mean that you arrived after the people who were throwing stones?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. And then, after you assessed the damage, what then did you do?

MR FAKUDE: I only left my house when they were already outside and they had dragged him out of the house and they were setting him alight.

MS VILAKAZI: I want to understand the sequence correctly. When you arrived at the scene stones were already being thrown around and you went into your house to check whether your house has been damaged, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: And then you only left your house when Mr Manoto was being burnt, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: Between those two periods, what were you doing?

MR FAKUDE: As mentioned before I was just safeguarding my home, that it does not get damaged. I even reprimanded some comrades who wanted to throw a petrol bomb into the house.

MS VILAKAZI: So you were concerned with your house, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MS VILAKAZI: You were not taking part in the attack on Mr Manoto and his family, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: I did not take part physically.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Mr Masagela?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MASAGELA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I just have a few questions.

Mr Fakude, in your testimony you said you were present at the meeting of the 21st of April 1993, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MR MASAGELA: Do you know the lady by the name of Anna Gumede?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, she's my neighbour.

MR MASAGELA: Did you see her in that meeting?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, we were together as members of the Street Committee.

MR MASAGELA: Did she at any stage address the meeting?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, she did, because seemingly we were delaying in sending people out to collect this person and she expressed the opinion that we were delaying these proceedings, but this person should be fetched there and then.

MR MASAGELA: Tell us exactly what she said in that meeting.

MR FAKUDE: She said "You elders do not know anything about the struggle, this person should be fetched". That is when the comrades left.

MR MASAGELA: So that's the only thing that she said?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, when she uttered those words the comrades went out rushing to the Manoto's home.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Fakude, in your testimony you said that the decision that was taken in that meeting was that Mr Manoto should be taken from his home and brought to the meeting, is that correct? I mean, ja, to the meeting at the church, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

MR MASAGELA: Did Ms Gumede at any stage say that Mr Manoto should be killed?

MR FAKUDE: No, she did not say he should be killed, she said he should be fetched.

MR MASAGELA: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Masagela. Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Fakude, in your amnesty application form on page 4, I would say it's the last paragraph 10(b), you say -

My question is, when did you hear this from the comrades?

MR FAKUDE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR FAKUDE: I learnt of it on a Monday evening.

MS THABETHE: What I'm asking is - maybe let's start here. At what date did the incident take place where Mr Manoto was killed? What day was it?

MR FAKUDE: It was on a Wednesday.

MS THABETHE: It was on a Wednesday.

MR FAKUDE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And when did the comrades tell you, was it before the day of the incident?

MR FAKUDE: I learnt of it on the Monday before the incident.

MS THABETHE: Maybe let's start here. At what day did the incident take place, where Mr Manoto was killed? What day was it?

MR FAKUDE: It was on a Wednesday.

MS THABETHE: And when did the comrades tell you? Was it before the day of the incident?

MR FAKUDE: I heard of it on the Monday before the incident.

MS THABETHE: And then you also say on page 4 first paragraph, you say:

When did the comrades tell you this in relation to the incident? Was is before or after the incident or during the incident?

MR FAKUDE: Please repeat your question.

MS THABETHE: I want to know when did the comrades come to your place and tell you that you should not do anything that you would regret, for trying to save your neighbour?

MR FAKUDE: On the same day that he was killed.

MS THABETHE: Was it after the meeting or before the meeting?

MR FAKUDE: After the meeting.

MS THABETHE: And then on the next page you say:

unfortunately I can't read your handwriting very well, it reads something like:

When were you told this? When were you threatened with your life?

MR FAKUDE: I do not know about them threatening me. What I do know is that at the time there was no other way that I could do.

MS THABETHE: Can you please show him the form?

MR FAKUDE: It was filled in by Mr Nkosi.

MS THABETHE: So are you saying that you did not tell Mr Nkosi that you were threatened by these people?

MR FAKUDE: No, I did not tell him about me being threatened.

MS THABETHE: Did you tell this to your attorneys?

MR FAKUDE: About this incident?

MS THABETHE: Yes, that what is written here is incorrect, you never said that people came to threaten you.

MR FAKUDE: I am saying this now.

MS THABETHE: So on the day of the incident, what would you say your attitude was? Did you support the act that was about to happen of killing Mr Manoto and did you associate yourself with it?

MR FAKUDE: I did associate myself with the act because of the relationship that he had with the police and also for the reason that I had received reports from the neighbours that he had sent police to their homes.

MS THABETHE: Coming to the Judgment on page 95, I just want to ask you, because you've indicated that you spoke at the meeting about Mr Manoto, I just want to find out a few things. Did you, at the meeting, speak about the dispute that you had had over the wall and the fact that it encroached on your property?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did. That was in addition to what Mr Makoba had expressed at the meeting.

MS THABETHE: Did you also, at the meeting that day, address the meeting about the fact that the deceased had accused you of making noise in your home?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did.

MS THABETHE: And what was the motive for you to talk about that dispute between you and your neighbour? What did you want to achieve by telling the meeting that because it had nothing to do with whether he was a police informer or not?

MR FAKUDE: That was to the effect that he should rather go and stay with the police instead of the community.

MS THABETHE: But would you agree that your dispute with him had nothing to do with the fact that he was a police informer or not?

MR FAKUDE: Yes I would agree with you.

MS THABETHE: On page 98 of the Judgment, it's indicated there that Mrs Manoto says she saw you entering the dining room from her roof and you were one of those people who took her out. Do you agree with this?

MR FAKUDE: I dispute that.

MS THABETHE: Also the son, Marvin, testified to the fact that he saw you in the yard and you were armed with a stick. Do you agree with this?

MR FAKUDE: I was in my yard, this is true, as I was assessing the situation.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Fakude, in your application form, there are also other statements, but before I put that to you, who filled out the form? Did you say Mr Nkosi? Who filled out the form for you?

MR FAKUDE: Mr Nkosi. Ephram Nkosi.

ADV BOSMAN: Who is he?

MR FAKUDE: A comrade who is the chairperson of our structure in the prison.

ADV BOSMAN: And you affirmed this form under oath, before a Commissioner of Oaths, is that right? If you turn to the last page.

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did sign when I was told to do so.

ADV BOSMAN: And it says there that you knew and understand the contents of the declaration.

MR FAKUDE: Well, I did not read what he had written down because we were under time pressures.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you know what was in it? You did not read it, but did he tell you what he had written?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, he did.

ADV BOSMAN: So why did you sign it?

MR FAKUDE: I signed after he had told me what he had written in the form, but I have just learned of the other things that I do not agree with.

ADV BOSMAN: It is stated in the form that you tried to stop them, not to, I think it's:

Did you know that was in the form?

MR FAKUDE: That is something that I mentioned in Court, but not in my application form.

ADV BOSMAN: No, but it is in the application form. My question is, did you know that it was written in the application form?

MR FAKUDE: No.

ADV BOSMAN: What did Mr Nkosi tell you, what did he write in the application form?

MR FAKUDE: I did not get that question.

ADV BOSMAN: What did Mr Nkosi tell you, what had he written in the form?

MR FAKUDE: He just informed me that he was finished and that I should sign.

ADV BOSMAN: So where did he get this information from?

MR FAKUDE: I did tell him about what I said in Court. He questioned me as to what I said in Court and I told him.

ADV BOSMAN: And did you then tell him that that what you said in Court was not right, it was not the truth?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did tell him.

ADV BOSMAN: And what did he then say to you?

MR FAKUDE: Well he seemed to agree with me that you are likely not to tell the truth in Court and I should tell the truth to the TRC, but I don't understand now why he wrote all of that, but unfortunately I did not have time to go through it and read it because we were under pressure. Mine was the only application form left.

ADV BOSMAN: Okay, if I can just get this - it's more a statement than a question. He told you that you must tell the truth, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: But in spite of that, he told the untruth in the form, is that correct?

MR FAKUDE: It surprises me that he wrote this on my form, because that is exactly what I explained to him, as to what I said in Court.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Honnorat?

MR HONNORAT: Just one aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Ms Vilakazi mentioned about two periods, Sir, the time you were assessing a possible damage to your property and your exit into the yard when you noticed that he already grabbed the deceased and burned him to death. In between those two moments, did you continue allowing the comrades free access to the house of the deceased?

MR FAKUDE: Yes, I did continue because ultimately they dragged him out of the house and then they set him alight, then that was when I left my own yard.

MR HONNORAT: Did you do that, I mean, out of malice, spite, ill feeling towards the deceased, personal rancour, because of the previous disputes? Any reason other than a political reason?

MR FAKUDE: I did not hold any personal grudge against him except for that action that he took which involved the whole community, the action of bringing the police to the Tshabalala home.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Honnorat. Mr Fakude you're excused. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, can you just give us an indication, according to the Correctional Services, until what time are we able to proceed today? Can you just get an indication from them?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I've indicated to them that we have two more applicants who still have to testify. They say they prefer that they continue in testifying, instead of coming back tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So they're able to accommodate us later, we can carry on?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Until what time? Oh, till we finish? Because we've got addresses and so, argument and everything else still.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, are we going to continue with argument, considering the fact that we've reserved the right for Adv Vilakazi and the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, we're going to continue. We're going to continue to wrap up this aspect of things.

MS THABETHE: Do we need, I'm just assuming, do we need the applicants during argument?

CHAIRPERSON: Presumably not, depending on what their legal representatives' views are, subject to their views.

MR HONNORAT: I don't believe it's necessary for applicants to be here for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I was going to suggest that if, maybe people are tired after the last applicant has given evidence and if we have to come back tomorrow, we just come back for argument, instead of coming back for evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose it will make little difference. I don't think we're going to be able to depart from the city in any case by the end of the night or the day, but let's proceed, let's proceed with the other applicants. Correctional Services seem to be in a position to accommodate us.

Yes, the interpreters will just have to give us an indication if they are not able to proceed, or if they need to catch their breath or whatever. So we've got the two applicants left. I don't know whether the interpreters actually interpret argument, I'm not sure. I don't see any real serious need to interpret argument, so it might be that even they could stand down after we've heard the evidence, because I know they've been going on for some time. Is that so? Alright. Yes, I'm told that they, sometimes they normally - but they must give us an indication. I mean, I know they've been going on for some time.

INTERPRETER: Yes, maybe I should just come in here. It has been quite a long day and we were of the opinion that if there are two more persons still to give testimony, maybe it would serve everyone's interests better if we adjourn today and go on tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't it assist you if you only need to interpret the evidence and be released after that?

INTERPRETER: Yes, that might go some way in assisting.

CHAIRPERSON: And not being called upon to interpret the arguments. We're trying to accommodate the public as far as we can, but we also take into account other considerations, of which one of them is the capacity of our staff to deal with matters, so I'm quite sure the public would understand if at the end of this very, very long gruelling session in respect of interpreting the evidence, we were to excuse the interpreters from interpreting the arguments.

INTERPRETER: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think let's complete the evidence of the two remaining applicants. It will also accommodate the Correctional Services, to know that they don't need to physically come back to this venue.

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairman, there is only one applicant available and that is Victor Sipho Tshabalala.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, okay, well that's better then.

MR HONNORAT: And I call Victor Tshabalala.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will Mr Tshabalala come forward?

SIPHO VICTOR TSHABALALA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat.

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: Mr Tshabalala, did you know the deceased, Mr Jacob Manoto and what was your knowledge based on?

MR TSHABALALA: I knew him, we resided on the same street.

MR HONNORAT: Can you tell this Honourable Panel what happened on the 18th of April 1993 between yourself and the deceased Mr Manoto?

MR TSHABALALA: I was returning from Church in my church uniform. Mr Manoto called me and enquired as to how the church service was and I explained to him how it was and he asked me why was I carrying firearms inside my coat.

MR HONNORAT: And then?

MR TSHABALALA: And then he asked me if I knew that the Bible dictated that you should love your neighbour and I said "Yes, I know about that" and he asked me why am I carrying a firearm and I responded to him that I do not know what he was talking about, because I was not carrying any firearm. That is when I left him.

MR HONNORAT: Do you know of anything particularly relevant which took place the following day, Monday the 19th of April 1993?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes. On the 19th I was away at work. I received a telephone call at about 9 from my sister to the effect that police had come to my home, searching for firearms and they'd been sent there by Mr Manoto. They searched the house and they could not find any firearms. Then they went to Mr Makoba's home, doing the same thing and they did the same thing to Mr Mbatha's home as well.

MR HONNORAT: How did you know about these incidents?

MR TSHABALALA: I was informed by my sister, Thoko Tshabalala.

MR HONNORAT: What happened after that?

MR TSHABALALA: She then told me that two comrades had arrived at my home to inquire about what they police were doing at my home and they explained and those two gentlemen suggested that we should go to the organisation and explain what had taken place.

MR HONNORAT: Now what organisation were you part of at the time, I mean, of the killing of the deceased in April 1993?

MR TSHABALALA: I was an ANC supporter.

MR HONNORAT: And this organisation which was supposed to be informed about what happened concerning the police searching your premises, what organisation are you referring to?

MR TSHABALALA: It was the ANC Youth League.

MR HONNORAT: So did you discuss the matter of the police having searched your premises for a possible firearm?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes. When I arrived home from work, I discovered that some family members had already left and I also followed them.

MR HONNORAT: What decision was taken at the ANC Youth League?

MR TSHABALALA: The decision that was taken was that the informer should be killed, but Themba expressed an opinion that the matter should be discussed with the Street Committee and the elders as well.

MR HONNORAT: Was there any other meeting after that, after the 19th of April meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, there was.

MR HONNORAT: When and where?

MR TSHABALALA: It was the meeting of the 21st of April.

MR HONNORAT: Was it at the Lutheran Church of Diepkloof, Zone 5?

MR TSHABALALA: That's correct.

MR HONNORAT: What was the outcome of that meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: That meeting decided that Mr Manoto should be killed.

MR HONNORAT: Did your mother speak at that meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not know because when I arrived the meeting was already in progress.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, just a minute. Can somebody just, can I ask you for a favour, can you just hand this to him please? Thank you. This was handed to me, it's apparently documentation that relates to your client's matter as well. There are no copies, those are the only ones that we have at this stage, so we haven't been able to duplicate it. You might want to have a look at that as well before you complete your evidence-in-chief.

MR HONNORAT: Can I then have a look, I mean, together with the applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: I'm indebted to you, to the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just switch off that other microphone, it records. It might assist us to stretch our legs as well.

MR HONNORAT: Yes, for a minute or two Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll stand down just for a few moments.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Honnorat.

SIPHO VICTOR TSHABALALA: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR HONNORAT: (cont)

Yes, Mr Tshabalala, then the decision was taken at the 21st of April meeting of which you have informed this whole Panel about. What happened after that?

MR TSHABALALA: Thereafter we all left and we proceeded to the house and on our arrival, we discovered that there was already a fight going on and when we arrived there, I also took part in throwing stones at Mr Manoto.

MR HONNORAT: So, you took part by throwing stones at Mr Manoto. Did you take any other positive part in the events of that day in the assaults against the deceased and members of his family?

MR TSHABALALA: I kicked Mrs Manoto.

MR HONNORAT: Why did you do that?

MR TSHABALALA: I did it because her husband was an informer, therefore they were in the same boat.

MR HONNORAT: Right, when did you become convinced that her husband was an informer?

MR TSHABALALA: I became convinced when he sent police to my home to search for those firearms, that is when I realised, yes, he is indeed an informer.

MR HONNORAT: Did you get any other information from other comrades about the feelings, suspicion, evidence that he was in fact a police informer?

MR TSHABALALA: There isn't any other evidence that I received from the comrades.

MR HONNORAT: Was there, or there wasn't?

MR TSHABALALA: There was no evidence that I received from the comrades, it was just something that I realised.

MR HONNORAT: Was the fact that he was a police informer discussed at the meeting of the 21st of April at the church?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, it was discussed.

MR HONNORAT: Did people express their opinions that he was in fact a police informer, the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: Did it strengthen your conviction that he was in fact a police informer?

MR TSHABALALA: That is true.

MR HONNORAT: Did you know, when you were by the deceased's place and you were throwing stones and then you kicked his wife and you were taking some part in those events, that those events would result, or likely to result in the death of the deceased?

MR TSHABALALA: I knew that he might die.

MR HONNORAT: Did you also associate yourself with that action, with the purpose behind that action carried out by a group of comrades at the scene?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: Was it because of him being an informer, as you state, in your firm conviction?

MR TSHABALALA: That's correct.

MR HONNORAT: Or was it caused by personal reasons, personal antipathy, hatred, animosity towards the deceased for something he has done to you in the past as neighbour or whatever?

MR TSHABALALA: I associated myself for the reason that he had indicated, clearly indicated that he was capable of having me killed for that reason that he sent the police because the police would take you, remove you from your home and kill you at some other place and for that reason, that indicated to me that he did not have my welfare at heart.

MR HONNORAT: Would you regard the motivation for you associating with the action of killing him and assaulting the members of his family as a political motivation?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR HONNORAT: Why are you saying so?

MR TSHABALALA: Because he was a police informer.

MR HONNORAT: Do you feel any need to express your apologies to the family of the deceased, at this later stage, now that the struggle has been completed and the political situation which prevailed in the townships at the time, has changed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I would be very happy to meet them, so that I could apologise to them for what happened. It was not my intention to commit such an act, but it was done because of the situation at the time, therefore I would like very much to meet them and apologise in person.

MR HONNORAT: Now Mr Tshabalala, there's a document here which starts with a legal profile concerning yourself, your name, your prison number etc, a paragraph concerning political motive and there's a signature at the bottom of this document. Is that your signature?

MR TSHABALALA: That's correct.

MR HONNORAT: Who compiled this profile and wrote down this political motive? Was it yourself?

MR TSHABALALA: Somebody wrote it on my behalf at the Maximum Prison.

MR HONNORAT: What's the name of that person?

MR TSHABALALA: Mr Nkosi.

MR HONNORAT: Is this your handwriting, the profile, the political motive, I'm not talking about the signature, the rest of the pages, is that your handwriting?

MR TSHABALALA: That is Mr Nkosi's handwriting.

MR HONNORAT: Okay and then there is a letter which starts with your name and the address of the prison and addresses the addressee of the letter by the reverential title "Sir" and concludes on the following page with the words, "Very sincerely, Victor Sipho Tshabalala" and then there are also some details concerning yourself. Now is this your handwriting, the two pages of this document?

MR TSHABALALA: I requested him to write it on my behalf.

MR HONNORAT: And did you sign it anywhere on the two pages of this document, this letter, addressing some unspecified Sir?

MR TSHABALALA: I do not really remember if I did sign anywhere.

MR HONNORAT: Okay, now can you tell the Honourable Panel, what did Mr Nkosi indicate to you the purpose behind the writing of these and the signing of these was concerned and how did you view it? How did you understand it, the purpose thereof? The indication from Nkosi and your understanding of the purpose?

MR TSHABALALA: He informed me that if I want to be released from prison, he would assist me in that I would tell him something that he would put on paper and he also told me that I could write just about anything that would release me from prison, that is when this letter was written.

MR HONNORAT: Did he ask you to say and for him to put on the letter, what kind of explanation you had tendered in court to promote the cause of your innocence at the time of the court proceedings?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, he did question me about what I said in court and I also explained to him that I denied any knowledge about the death of Mr Manoto.

MR HONNORAT: Now was it explained to you that this was an application for amnesty and that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would have given you a fair hearing in a safe situation where you would feel free to tell the whole truth to the Commission, including any possible involvement in any offences you committed in the past? Was that, I mean, brought home to you at the time of compiling this document and having you append your signature to it?

MR TSHABALALA: He did not explain that to me.

MR HONNORAT: Do you understand now what the purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and specifically its Amnesty Committee is?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do.

MR HONNORAT: Did you feel free when giving your evidence today in front of this Honourable Committee, that you understood the reason for this Commission and that therefore you felt free to say the whole truth, frankly and fully about what happened the date of the killing of Mr Manoto and your participation in it?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I am free.

MR HONNORAT: Do you confirm that what was written down in this document does not represent the truth?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: And have you given a full and frank disclosure today, feeling safe to do so, to this Honourable Committee?

MR TSHABALALA: That is correct.

MR HONNORAT: Is there anything further you would like to add to your evidence you have given before?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes. When I return from night services, night church services, I would regularly see police vehicles parked at his home. This happened for weeks on end, but I did not concern myself about this because it did not concern me. He just kept his business with the police to himself, but when he sent them to me, I realised that he must be on to something. I then realised that he must be on a mission to eliminate the comrades. I can also mention that I did not get an opportunity to physically attack Mr Manoto because just as I kicked Mrs Manoto, I received a message that my sister had fainted. I then had to go home and proceed to take my sister to the hospital. This hurt me because I had also wanted to take part in the attack of Mr Manoto. That is all.

MR HONNORAT: Did you stand to obtain, or did you obtain any financial gain from the killing of Mr Manoto and assaults on these members of his family, hence specifically your contribution therewith?

MR TSHABALALA: No, I did not receive any compensation, only hardships.

MR HONNORAT: I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Honnorat. Ms Vilakazi, any questions?

MS VILAKAZI: Just a few questions for the sake of clarification.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VILAKAZI: Mr Tshabalala, I just want to be clear about the statement that is on page 41 and 42 of the bundle. Do you have knowledge of that statement?

MR HONNORAT: Perhaps Mr Chairman, if somebody can read it out to him, so that he can have an understanding of what the document is all about, he doesn't just read English on his own.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, or at least - what did you want to know about this thing?

MS VILAKAZI: Apparently there are some things that were written on behalf of Mr Tshabalala which he denies he ever said, so I just wanted to know if he also denies this statement, so that we don't use it fro cross-examination purposes, or whether he associates himself with it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, then I think somebody will have to just, I don't know if he can read that in English, perhaps somebody must just interpret that to him.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I don't know whether this will be of assistance. I have just given a hand-written statement to the legal representatives so maybe the start would be to know whether that's his handwriting there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Yes, because if it is, then we'd assume that he wrote it himself and he should understand English.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just before - sorry, Mr Honnorat, Mr Zulu, I just want to ask him, is he looking at that hand-written document?

MR ZULU: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tshabalala is that your hand-writing on that document?

MR TSHABALALA: No, it's not mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. So you haven't written that document?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I didn't write down this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recognise the statement, whatever it is, I'm not sure what it is. I haven't seen it. Whatever that document is, do you recognise it?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes I recognise the handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose handwriting is it?

MR TSHABALALA: There is someone who came to me in prison saying that he/she is coming from the Truth Commission and it is the person who took this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Somebody from the Truth Commission. Is that statement signed? Just have a look.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is there, is there anything in particular that you want to raise with regard to this statement, because it seems to have been taken by somebody?

MS VILAKAZI: I just wanted to verify two things from that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you deal directly with them?

MS VILAKAZI: Okay. In the meeting, let us not focus on the statement then, in the meeting that was held to discuss the question of Mr Manoto being an informer, did you make any contribution in that meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: Nothing.

MS VILAKAZI: What was your reason for not participating, for not saying anything?

MR TSHABALALA: I arrived in the middle of the meeting.

MS VILAKAZI: But was the issue still being discussed, the issue of Mr Manoto being an informer, was it still being discussed when you arrived at the meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: So you may have said what you wanted to say because you were still talking about it, is that not correct?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MS VILAKAZI: But you decided not to say anything, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I didn't have the chance to speak because it was full when I arrived and when people were speaking.

MS VILAKAZI: But you've just said that you would have said something if you wanted to.

MR TSHABALALA: If I arrived at the meeting in time, before the meeting started.

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, there's another sentence in that statement, its on page 42, which I want you to clarify the House as to whether you stand by it or you refute it now. Paragraph 6, after relating about the meeting, the first sentence in paragraph 6, it says "I went straight home." Do you still maintain that after the meeting you went home?

MR TSHABALALA: No. The person who arrived the prison was writing things which I never said and he was not very conversed in English, he himself, because there was even another one, a young man, who will caution him to say "Don't write like that, this person said that and that."

MS VILAKAZI: Okay, let us now go to the events leading to the death of Mr Manoto. You said in your evidence that you did not get the opportunity to physically kick Mr Manoto. Did I hear you correctly?

MR TSHABALALA: I never said I never got a chance to kick him, I said to lay my hand on him.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you do anything to Mr Manoto?

MR TSHABALALA: No nothing, except that I did throw stones. Himself, I didn't touch him.

MS VILAKAZI: Did you assault any of his family members?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, Mrs Manoto.

MS VILAKAZI: I would like to refer you to some statements which were uttered by the Judge in his Judgment, page 64 and I ask the legal representative to assist you there. Page 64, line no. 7. The judge said he also heard accused number 2, and he was referring to Marvin, he also heard accused number 2 saying that:

What is your comment about that statement?

MR TSHABALALA: I never said it, I don't know anything about it.

MS VILAKAZI: So you're denying that you ever said that statement, you uttered those words?

MR TSHABALALA: I never uttered such words to Mr Manoto.

MS VILAKAZI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vilakazi. Yes Mr Masagela.

MR MASAGELA: Thank Chairperson. I just have some few questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala, in your testimony you just said, immediately after you got information that your house was searched, you reported the matter to the comrades, is that correct?

MR TSHABALALA: That's correct.

MR MASAGELA: And a meeting was subsequently held.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: And you discussed Mr Manoto in that meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: That's correct.

MR MASAGELA: Is it also correct that a resolution was taken that "impimpis" must be killed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: Is it correct that you were referring to Mr Manoto?

MR TSHABALALA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR MASAGELA: Is it correct that you said "impimpis" must be killed, when you resolved in that meeting that "impimpi" must be killed, you were referring to Mr Manoto?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: And you also testified that a meeting was subsequently held on the 21st, where Mr Manoto was once again discussed.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: And it was also resolved in that meeting, if I heard you correctly, that Mr Manoto must be killed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: And was this decision, I mean all those - both decisions, am I correct that they were taken collectively?

MR TSHABALALA: Some of us still wanted to discuss the matter further, since we were mixed, there were other people, there were young people and then other people were not even comrades and we were mixed, there were people who didn't want this to happen, there were others who were for the idea that he should be killed.

MR MASAGELA: But can you say that, I mean is it correct that the majority of the people were saying Mr Manoto in that meeting, the majority of the people were saying Mr Manoto must be killed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala, in your statement, I just want you to confirm some of the things that were written in your statement. I'm referring to page 42 of the bundle, the fifth paragraph. You just said, in the statement you said:

That was at the end of the meeting. Do you confirm to that statement, do you confirm that?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I do confirm.

MR MASAGELA: And when Ms Gumede uttered those words that you must go and kill that dog, how did you understand it?

MR TSHABALALA: I understood it mean that Ms Gumede was now fed up with this informer.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala, does Ms Gumede have any authority to instruct people in that meeting to go and kill Mr Manoto?

MR TSHABALALA: I will say she does because she was once at a certain stage a member of the Street Committee.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala just said that the decision to kill Mr Manoto was taken collectively, so how do you reconcile that? It can be taken, I mean the decision can be taken collectively and that Ms Gumede can also give instruction to people to kill, how do you reconcile the two?

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, I object to the question. He didn't say that both - he was asked whether both decisions on the 19th and 21st were decided collectively. That was a question put to him and he replied that specifically the 21st of April meeting, some of us still wanted to discuss this matter because it was a mixed group with elders and even non-comrades, so at no time did the applicant say that in fact it was a collective decision, he spoke in fact specifically subsequent to another question to a majority decision, so I object, that I mean, he never said such words.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well yes, majority took the decision at the meeting of the 21st of April 1993 to kill. I think you are asking the opinion of this applicant, you want to know if she could order them to go kill and you know, he expresses a view, he says she was once a member of the Street Committee, possibly she could have had the authority. I don't know to what extent that is really material to what we have to decide, whether she had the authority or not. Either it's in dispute whether she said the words and if she didn't say the words, she didn't say the words, if she said the words, she said the words, whether she had authority to order people to go and kill is a different story. I don't know whether that is really in dispute in this matter.

MR MASAGELA: I'm indebted to you Mr Chair. Mr Tshabalala I just want you to clarify, when the people left the meeting and went to Mr Manoto's house, what was the purpose to go and kill Mr Manoto at the house, or were they going to fetch him to the meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: The aim was to go and kill him as he was an informer.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala, Mr Fakude has testified earlier that the purpose of the people leaving the meeting there was to go and fetch Mr Manoto from his house to the meeting again. Do you have any comment?

MR TSHABALALA: I would say to him, you might perceive it like that, but I'll say that is a mistake because the aim was to kill him, because the decision had already been taken.

MR MASAGELA: Mr Tshabalala, my instructions are that Ms Gumede never uttered those words, that comrades must go and kill that dog. My instructions are that Ms Gumede told the meeting that she was leaving because the following day she was going to work and that now that this matter of Mr Manoto cannot be resolved between the youth and the elderly, she's leaving and then you will, the people in that meeting will decide what to do with Mr Manoto and then she left the meeting. Do you have any comment?

MR TSHABALALA: In Ms Gumede's issue, I will ask us not to dwell much on it because it's possible that I might not have heard well what she said, maybe I misunderstood what she said.

MR MASAGELA: Now are you saying that it's possible that you may not have heard properly when she addressed the meeting?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MR MASAGELA: No further questions, thank Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Masagela. Ms Thabethe have you got any questions?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Tshabalala, I also want to clarify a few issues that you've raised about the statements that you say were not written by yourself. You've indicated that some of the contents or all of the contents of that statement, I'm not sure, maybe I should ask you. Are the contents in these two statements, the one that is in the bundle and the other one that you say was written by Mr Nkosi, are you denying the whole content of these two statements, or there are some portions that are true in the two statements?

MR TSHABALALA: I would say I deny everything in the statement which I gave to Nkosi because he didn't explain to me.

MS THABETHE: Okay, just to make this easier I've summarised the letter that you say was written by Mr Nkosi into four points. I'll just mention them and I want you to confirm that it's not true, one by one. The first point is that you say you were not present when Mr Manoto was killed. The second point is that you went to hospital after your sister had fainted. The third point is that you are innocent, you don't want to destroy your future for something that you did not do. Now are you saying that it's not true, you were not present when Mr Manoto was killed?

MR TSHABALALA: At the time on which Mr Manoto was killed, I wasn't present, I didn't even see how he was killed.

MS THABETHE: So is it correct that you were not present when he was killed?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: So which means that what is here is correct, that portion of the letter is correct.

MR TSHABALALA: You mean when they were killing Mr Manoto?

MS THABETHE: No. In the letter that is written by Mr Nkosi, you indicate that there is nothing that is correct there and in the letter that is written by Mr Nkosi, it indicates that you were not there when Mr Manoto was killed and you are saying that's correct, so we should take it that portion of the letter is correct, isn't it?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I wasn't present at the time when he was killed.

MS THABETHE: Right. Secondly, you say you went to hospital after your sister had fainted, is this fact correct or not?

MR TSHABALALA: That's true.

MS THABETHE: And thirdly you say you are innocent, you don't want to destroy your future for something you did not do, is this correct or not correct?

MR TSHABALALA: I said I'm innocent. I was trying to explain to this man that I didn't even touch Mr Manoto or kill him.

MS THABETHE: Right. So you would agree with me that some of the portions in this letter that was written by Mr Nkosi, are true, isn't it? You've just confirmed that.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes some of the things.

MS THABETHE: Right, we come now to the statement that you say was written by one of the TRC members. I'm not sure who it is, but I'm a TRC official as well and I have to question you on it because you have indicated that he did not understand English. Right, in this statement it's also indicated that you say you were not present when Mr Manoto was killed. This is indicated at paragraph 6 of your statement. Also in paragraph 6 it's indicated that you went to hospital after your sister had fainted. Would you agree with this?

MR TSHABALALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: So my question is, you have indicated that this is also, this statement in the bundle contains information that is not correct. Would you like to withdraw that statement?

MR ZULU: Could I interject, Honourable Chair. In fact this original statement is exactly the same thing which is, it's exactly the same statement which is in the bundle, so in other words my learned friend is actually questioning him in respect of one and the same thing, although this one is hand-written, that's the only difference, and this one is typed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume that.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can I respond to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Initially I questioned the applicant on the statement that was written by Mr Nkosi, which contained the same facts as the statement that was taken from the applicant by our TRC official.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Right.

MS THABETHE: And the applicant is claiming that the contents contained in these two statements are not true.

MR TSHABALALA: Yes, I assume what he's saying is that to the extent that anything contained in those documents differs from what he said in testimony, that wouldn't be true, that's what I understand he's trying to tell us. So I don't know where we're going to now.

MS THABETHE: Yes. Mr Chair, I just wanted him to clarify that because he said a TRC official came to him, took a statement of something he did not say, which means that the TRC official didn't understand English, hence this whole exercise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Just to prove that the TRC official took a statement based on what he told the TRC official, because it's the same statement that was written by Mr Nkosi and it's the same evidence that he gave in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but now, what is the dispute? Is there a dispute between the contents of any of those things and the testimony that he'd given here today?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, now put that to him and let's leave this whole exercise of trying to say who wrote, who understood English and who wrote what who said, just deal with whatever is apparently a contradiction and let him respond to it and tell us whether it's true or not.

MS THABETHE: I was trying to do that, Mr Chair, because in his own evidence he says nothing is the truth in these two statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I mean look, he hasn't got the stuff in front of him, we haven't given him an opportunity to read through these things, what do you expect us to do?

MS THABETHE: I went through the points one by one, Mr Chair, precisely to assist him because I'm aware that he might not remember everything that was contained in these two statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know what you're saying, I hear what you're saying and I'm asking you, deal with whatever you suggest is contradictory in those things to what he has said in his testimony and he'll respond to it. Let's get down to what matters in this case, please.

MS THABETHE: Mr Tshabalala, I put it to you that the statement that was written by Mr Nkosi and the statement that was written by a TRC official contain true information that was furnished by you and that you've contradicted yourself in your evidence that it does not contain statements that were given by you. What is your response to that?

MR TSHABALALA: I didn't understand you very well.

MS THABETHE: Can I be allowed to explain in Zulu, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, why don't you, I don't have these things in front of me, I'm not particularly minded at this stage to scour through these statements, are there any contradictions between his evidence under oath today and the contents of those statements? If there is, why don't you just put that section of those documents to him and let him comment on it if you want to.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, the contradiction is he says the statement that were written by Mr Nkosi and the statement that was written by a TRC official is not true, so unfortunately in the statements there are many points that were raised and I've raised those points with him to show they are true and that's what I'm putting to him, that the statement he gave in his evidence earlier on, that these statements are not true, is false.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but please, I don't know where that takes us to. What I'm interested in is, is there anything in there that conflicts with his version, not his view on the veracity or otherwise of these documents, that doesn't help us, is there anything in there that you want to deal with that is material that contradicts the testimony of the applicant on the merits of this case before us, on the incident not on these peripheral things? That will assist us, if there's anything, and let him comment on it. If something is written down in any one of those documents that contradicts his evidence in respect of the merits of this matter, why don't you put that to him and let him deal with it, if he can? That will help us.

MS THABETHE: Okay, Mr Tshabalala, I'm putting it to you that in these two statements and also in court, you indicated that you were not present when Mr Manoto was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, when he was killed. Wasn't your earlier proposition when he was killed?

MS THABETHE: Maybe I should read it, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Because how I understand the applicant's evidence is that when, at a point, when Mr Manoto was killed he wasn't present. He doesn't know when he was killed, but he was part of the attack. He threw stones at Mr Manoto, he kicked his wife, he was present on the scene, not at the point of the killing, that is the issue now. Does that leave anything in dispute, because if it doesn't then move on to something else that does leave something in dispute.

MS THABETHE: But Mr Chair, I want to put it to him that what he has raised today, contradicts what he has told to the TRC official, to Mr Nkosi and also to the court, because in court he clearly says the comrades were busy throwing stones towards Mr Manoto and he says he was standing in front of his door looking towards Mr Manoto's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ask him that.

MS THABETHE: Suggesting that he was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please ask him, I don't know how much it's going to help to be debating what happened in court, we know what happens in courts, those things are of very little value in general, but don't get stuck on questions which are not really points in dispute, because I hope you understand that, what the applicant is trying to tell us in respect of the killing of Mr Manoto, not in respect of the attack, of the killing because there doesn't seem to be any dispute.

MS THABETHE: Maybe I should raise this in argument, Mr Chair, because I hold the view that today we are hearing a different version from the one that was told to Mr Nkosi, from the one that was told to our TRC official and from the one that was told in Court. These three versions are consistent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in court you say that he said that he stood in front of his door. That's one issue.

MS THABETHE: Yes, he was not there when the attack took place. He says the same thing in ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, listen please, just listen.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That on the face of it seems to contradict what he's telling us now, what he said to court. Okay?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, let's - you can deal with that one, because on the fact of it, is a contradiction. Whatever the weight of that is, is something that we must think about. The question of the killing, I don't want you to waste time on it. I'm just trying to ascertain whether you understand the evidence of the applicant in respect of that particular incident. He doesn't say he wasn't present during the attack, he says he wasn't present at the point of the killing. Do you follow that? You understand that point?

MS THABETHE: I understand that Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Manoto was actually executed. When he was burned out, when he was killed, not the attack. He says when he was killed, at that point in time, he wasn't present. You follow?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair. I follow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, alright, then we shouldn't have a misunderstanding on that one.

MS THABETHE: I follow Mr Chair, but in the statement ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Excuse me, if I may, perhaps I can assist Ms Thabethe here.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Thabethe, I suggest what you're getting at is you want to put to him the statement where he says he went straight home, the comrades were busy throwing stones and he was standing in front of the door. That is what you want to put to him.

MS THABETHE: Suggesting that he did not partake.

ADV BOSMAN: Well put that to him, then the whole solution, the matter will be resolved.

CHAIRPERSON: Right go ahead, let's see how far you can take it now.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Tshabalala, in your statement to the TRC official and in court and also in your statement to Mr Nkosi you indicate that from the meeting you went straight home, you did not partake in the throwing of stones at Mr Manoto, because you were standing in front of your door looking towards Mr Manoto's house and thereafter you took your sister to hospital. What is your response?

CHAIRPERSON: Now is that true or false?

MR TSHABALALA: It means they didn't understand me. I never said when I left the meeting, I went straight home. They have written things which I never said. They didn't write exactly the sequence as to when I left the meeting, where did I go.

MS THABETHE: I find that very strange, that two people who don't know each other, can write the same thing and they claim that it comes from you and you come and say they did not have authority to write that. I find that very strange. What is your response to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, isn't that a matter of argument? Can you get on to cross-examination, if you have questions?

MS THABETHE: I wanted him to respond to that, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that's - no, I'm not going to get him to respond to that, that's argument.

MS THABETHE: In that case I'll raise it during argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What are the other questions?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, whatever I had, I think I'll raise it in argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps it will assist us in that way rather. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Tshabalala, did you, or anybody else on your behalf, ever fill out an application form for amnesty?

MR TSHABALALA: Will you please repeat the question?

ADV BOSMAN: Did you, or anybody on your behalf, ever fill out an application form such as your co-applicants', to ask for amnesty?

MR TSHABALALA: Someone completed it on my behalf.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you remember who it was?

MR TSHABALALA: I can't remember whether it was Patience. Patience yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Now when the person from the TRC came to see you, did he explain to you why he came to see you?

MR TSHABALALA: That person explained that he/she has been sent by Peter Shabangu.

ADV BOSMAN: Did he perhaps explain to you whether you must be a witness, or did he say he's taking this for your application, this statement?

MR TSHABALALA: It was taken on the understanding that I will be a witness.

ADV BOSMAN: Alright, thank you.

MR ZULU: Sorry Mr Chair, the Honourable Panel, if I could just clarify certain issues, because I'm well conversant about the person that came to make the applicant complete this form, it's Patience, who is the legal officer of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: From the TRC desk?

MR ZULU: No, the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the ANC TRC desk?

MR ZULU: And then the person, I should think, the applicant is referring to, is actually the investigating officer from the TRC, Mr Maghadla, who has visited the applicant at Leeukop Prison and Mr Maghadla was in fact in possession of the whole court record, which I actually submitted to him to peruse through, so the possibility is that some of the information contained herein, might have been extracted from the court record, as such. There is just that confusion Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the investigator know at that point that you were representing Mr Tshabalala as well?

MR ZULU: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He knew that.

MR ZULU: He knew that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he ever send this thing to you for your comment, this document?

MR ZULU: No not at all, it's actually for the first time that I come across it.

CHAIRPERSON: He has never been in touch with Mr Shabangu through your offices as it were, through your facilitation.

MR ZULU: No in fact I was actually informed by him that he's been to see the applicants, all of them. He, in fact, as the applicant is mentioning that this person, when he came to him he told him that Peter Shabangu sent him. In fact the investigating officer mentioned it to me officially that one of the applicants has already confessed everything to him and that's Peter Shabangu, so you know, whatever he's just said related to the person who visited him in what do you call it, confirms my conversation with the investigating officer of the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much. We've noted that. Is there any re-examination Mr Honnorat?

MR HONNORAT: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Not. Thank you. Yes, Mr Tshabalala, you're excused.

MR ZULU: Mr Chair and the Honourable Panel, if I may interject at the same time. Well of course this just comes of late. I've just been furnished instructions by two persons who actually didn't apply initially and who were actually accused in this matter, that's now accused 1 and accused number 3 in the matter, so according to the information that I gather from them, that nobody actually had approached them to complete the forms, they have always been willing. They're not part of the section which is in Leeukop, they're actually in Johannesburg prison. They were juveniles at the time of conviction. Accused number 1 was

actually 14 years and accused number 3 was 16 years and so when the application process was going on, they were actually refused by, so I'm told, by the prison warders, to have access to the application forms, or to have the representative from the ANC office, to consult with them. However, they are saying in fact, they should be made part and parcel of this process because they are willing to, you know, apply for amnesty and at the same time they're willing to give evidence to this Committee, which evidence possibly might supplement whatever evidence has been tendered herein, although I'm not as yet properly instructed in the matter. However, I am of the view as well that somewhere somehow their piece of evidence might assist this Committee in arriving at a proper decision at a later stage.

In view of that and their personal circumstances and the fact that they were actually refused access to apply, I would submit that this Committee at least shouldn't dwell on the technicalities as such. Well of course I've had a consultation with the TRC officials, who have no objection to that, but it is up to the Committee, the Honourable Committee, to decide in respect of their fate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we have taken note of the fact that there were a number of ...(inaudible) criminal trial, we have gone through all our records in order to identify those of them who have possibly applied for amnesty. We have located all of those accused who had in fact applied for amnesty, accused 1, 3 and number 10 and if I'm not mistaken, number 8. Other ones who haven't applied for amnesty according to our records, there was no record of an amnesty application at all. The unfortunate result of that of course is that there is a legal bar that applies under those circumstances. The provisions of the Act that we operate under are peremptory, it contained a cut-off date for applications and the upshot of all that is of course is that somebody has not applied within the time periods that were provided, there were a number of extensions to the cut-off date and so on for various reasons to accommodate people with difficulties and we've had quite a number of applications.

So the nett result of all that of course is that it binds our hands, it ties our hands, we're not in a position to deal with matters which have not been raised within the cut-off date so insofar as the panel is concerned here, we wouldn't be able to be of assistance to your clients where they haven't applied for amnesty. We might just add that some of the existing applicants have not strictly complied with all of the technicalities and it is precisely because we were trying to be as accommodating as possible that the Amnesty Committee has not adopted a technical attitude towards these things and for that reason we have been entertaining all of those applications which have been brought to the notice of the Committee within the cut-off date. We've actually made it possible for those cases to be heard but the ones, unfortunately there are just no applications at all that were submitted we wouldn't be able to deal with. Your remedy will more than likely lie on a different level, it will more than likely have to be some or other administrative process that you might have to follow and it might very well be that you know, once this matter is finalised and a decision is given in respect of those applicants who have appeared here, that you might very well be in a position to follow the administrative channels that exist in respect of the prerogatives of the President to come to assistance of people where the normal court process has been exhausted so it might be that that is where your remedy lies eventually, the administrative authorities would be able to exercise you know, the prerogatives that the President holds in order to assist a person in that position where a great injustice would result from the particular circumstances that you have sketched here which might very well be the kind of circumstance that would enable the President to exercise his prerogative. But apart from that there is nothing that we would be able to do as a panel sitting at this point, unfortunately all hands are tied and you'll have to investigate the other possibilities which might be relatively easier once this process has been finished and a decision has been given in respect of this matter. You might be able to get some restorance from the investigative authorities but that unfortunately is the position, the legal position that we are bound to at this point.

Now I assume that takes care of the applicants that are before us?

MR HONNORAT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson yes. I suppose the ...(indistinct) aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Vilakazi we have already dealt with the position of your clients. They have their rights reserved if they so decide to come into the process. However, you have noted that we have set a time period in respect of any statements that they wish to submit to the Committee. We have ruled that they should be, if they want to submit any statements or any submissions or any material to us, they should do that within seven days of the date of that ruling so that would be something that you will have to look into. The question whether they want to participate in the proceedings of course they will have to decide that and give us an indication as to whether they actually want to participate but if they have any submissions they want to make, any statements they want to submit to us, they will have to do it within that time period.

MS VILAKAZI: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear sorry? Let me put this on.

MS VILAKAZI: Do I have to respond to that? I take it that you were just clarifying the position?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was just raising it just to make sure that we are ad idem on this, that we understand the position in respect of your clients' situation. Very well, Masagela, have you got any other witnesses?

MR MASAGELA: Mr Chair thanks, if that is the feeling of this Committee that we are proceeding, the only witness that I have is Ms Gumede.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that to come and deny that what has happened at this meeting or is there any other issue because if that is the issue then perhaps I must indicate to you that that is not really a matter that is directly material to the applications of these applicants. I mean we are not - there's no compelling reason that I can see at this point that we ought to be resolving that issue at all?

MR MASAGELA: If that is the case, Mr Chair, then also on my side we don't have any problem. I just wanted to get clarity from the Honourable Committee that if, whether it's necessary that Ms Gumede should come and testify to clarify actually what happened on the day in question but if that is the opinion of this Honourable Committee that it's not necessary for her to come and produce any evidence then there's no any other witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes unless we misunderstand the situation, they're not suggesting that they acted on orders from your client, they just as part of giving the evidence they were just trying to say what everybody said at this meeting and that's not really the basis of the application, that your client authorised them or that she had the power to authorise them to go and execute the deed. So it's not really a material question insofar as the amnesty is concerned.

MR MASAGELA: If that is the case, Mr Chair, then there is not anything from our side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Masagela.

And Ms Thabethe, have you got any evidence that you are tendering?

MS THABETHE: Not at all Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Well that concludes the evidence in the matter. We have indicated that once we've reached this stage that there is no reason - yes I don't know whether I've excused you, Mr Tshabalala, but if I haven't then you are excused now. We have indicated to the representatives of the Department of Correctional Services that once we've reached this stage there's no compelling reason why the applicant should be physically present. Their legal representatives have already indicated that they also don't need them to further attend so they could be excused so as to cause not too much disruption at the prison.

We also indicated that the interpreters would be excused if they are too exhausted to say anything further at this point so as a panel and the legal representatives of the parties here, we wouldn't need the assistance of the interpreters so you also not under obligation to continue if you can't, physically can't, do that. You would then be excused if you'd like that to be the case.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Honnorat, have you got any submissions on the merits of these applications?

MR HONNORAT: Mr Chairperson, I've got submissions I think I will need to consider all evidence that has been given here. I'm also quite worried about my personal transport which I have to organise, my car I mean is not available at the moment so I'll need to use public transport and it's got to cut off time, I mean whether ...(indistinct) and whether if it's necessary to go, I mean, a little bit further in depth whatever has been presented, today especially, you know to make proper submissions on behalf of all clients and considering, I mean, the amnesty, I mean, and how it fits in terms of the Act. So it is actually my request that the submissions might be permitted to be addressed to this Honourable Committee tomorrow morning after going through the evidence, considering it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well you know, we have gone to great lengths here to get to this point and to get the evidence concluded. We had indicated that we want to hear the argument earlier on, if you had indicated that you've got problems in addressing us we wouldn't have exhausted everybody up to this hour just to have to reconvene tomorrow for an hour or whatever it's going to take to conclude this matter but I mean if you're not in a position to address then I suppose there's nothing we can do about that.

MR HONNORAT: Well I said I didn't expect, I mean, the sort of lengthy cross-examination and the matter to proceed beyond 6 o'clock, ....(indistinct) just as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is your attitude, I mean have you got any attitude that you want to raise in respect of a request that the argument should be taken tomorrow? It looks like Mr Honnorat is telling us that he's not in a position to address us, I mean we can't force him. We have a few powers but I don't think we've got the power to force counsel to speak to us.

MS VILAKAZI: Honourable Chair, I think I'm in somewhat the same position as Mr Honnorat having not anticipated that the proceedings which stretch up to this point and I also have transport constraints but looking at the volume of the evidence that was given today, I would really need time to check on, to make a meaningful contribution.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe, I think you're the only one who is ready to proceed?

MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair but I have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But unfortunately we can't start with you, we have to start with Mr Honnorat.

MS THABETHE: I was going to say I have no objection if we continue tomorrow but I just wanted to put it on record of course that, I mean in this incident it might appear long but many issues really are not in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think there's merit in that submission. Yes, no I agree with you.

MS THABETHE: So I mean if we do convene tomorrow I hope, you know, my learned colleagues are aware that they don't have to go to town, you know?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: With each and every evidence that was accused because at the end of the day ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we certainly have all the evidence on the records, we don't want to it to be repeated, we've heard it all.

MS THABETHE: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We would only want submissions on the relevant factors that come into play in enabling us to decide whether or not these applications comply with the requirements of the Act which are clearly spelt out in the Act.

MR HONNORAT: Yes Mr Chairperson, I would just like to - one of the benefits of doing it tomorrow is that it will flow in a coherent and logical fashion so I mean the time will be saved.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that might be of big assistance if it is more digestible and coherent. Mr Masagela, I assume you're also ready to proceed? You are probably overruled by the majority of your colleagues here?

MR MASAGELA: I beg your pardon Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to proceed with the argument?

MR MASAGELA: I'm also in the same position, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That there's nobody we can rely on here? Alright. Well, yes I think that takes care of it. Our last bit of hope has now disappeared so we'll have to then reconvene tomorrow, unfortunately, for another session. Yes, I just want to - I'm sorry, just ask the people to just go please, I can't hear? Just go out, thank you.

Yes well, you know, we were working on the assumption that we would be able to conclude the proceedings today. We will have to conclude the argument relatively early tomorrow in order to accommodate - everybody's been talking about transport, accommodate transport needs of some of the members on the panel, all of the members of the panel because none of us are resident in Johannesburg so under those circumstances we would like to reconvene tomorrow morning at 8.30 to take your arguments and hopefully it won't take us very long, you know, unless we are able to conclude relatively early, you know, we are going to have some very difficult arrangements to make in order to ensure that the members of the panel get home safely and without undue inconvenience which is going to result from the delay here. So we would like to reconvene at 8.30 to take your arguments and obviously by the nature of things we will have to reserve the decision in this matter so we'll really just reconvene to take your arguments tomorrow morning. So we will now adjourn and we will reconvene at 8.30 tomorrow morning.