CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson. The first applicant on the roll today Chairperson, is Mr Mamphaga. I just want to inform the Commission that the following people are implicated people and that we've also been informed by the applicant that these persons, Mr Steve Kumba, his Commander, Satch Biyani Mabatha, were involved in this incident Chairperson, and they all are deceased, Chairperson.

In relation to the victims we have Mr Paulos Sithole, that is the brother of Mr Petrus Sithole, as well as his mother in the audience, Chairperson, Mrs Rachel Sithole.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we start we should, as I've been asked to do in the past by those recording, place ourselves on record. The Committee consists of myself, Judge Chris de Jager and Adv Sibongile Sigodi. Appearing for the applicant?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, my name is Brian Koopedi, I am appearing for the applicant.

MR NYAWUZA: My name is OP Nyawuza, I'm appearing for the victims. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: My name is Lynn Coleridge and I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the first matter to decide is what the application relates to. We have been served with an application in respect of recruiting for military activity, which was apparently received by the TRC Amnesty Committee in 1997, and was only signed, attested to on the 10th of February in the year 2000. That application relates only to recruiting for military activities.

MR KOOPEDI ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chairperson. I would request this opportunity to ask for an amendment on the application form. Chairperson, earlier on before we proceeded, I had a chat with both the Evidence Analyst and the attorney for the victims and discussed the fact that our application form seems to refer only to recruiting for military activities and says nothing about the murder. I then consulted with the applicant on this issue and I was told that prior to him completing this application form he was advised attorneys, and their names appear on the application form, which attorneys said to him he needs to put his application only in broad terms and should there be any further explanations sought from him, such will follow in due course. It is my submission, Chairperson, that this applicant intended specifically to apply for his involvement in this murder.

CHAIRPERSON: But there is no mention in broad terms of murder, of killing anybody.

MR KOOPEDI: I concede that is so, Chairperson, but what actually happened is this is the advice he was given. If we would also look at the dates that he has written, the dates refer from 1981 to 1989, and in his mind this would include everything that he did during this period. It is on those basis, Chairperson, that we would ask that there be an amendment and that this application should relate to the killing of the late Mr Sithole.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are suggesting that we should say that where a man writes down "Recruiting for Military Activities", this includes murders? I'm afraid, speaking for myself, I have grave difficulty in accepting that. I don't know - I'll ask the other members of the Committee to express their views.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If there was an amendment before the deadline of the 30th of September, I think we would have been entitled to grant it, but there's nothing in the Act empowering us to grant an amendment for a new offence not being mentioned before the deadline of filing your application. It's not amendment this because you're not amending something, you're introducing an application for amnesty for a new offence.

MR KOOPEDI: I concede that that might be a view that a person holds on this, but my submission Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, is that when this applicant made his application, attorneys advised that by simply stating that he was recruiting for military activities and including all the dates, this would cover him. My submission is that his intention was at the time he completed the form, to apply for this murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that an attorney, a qualified attorney, told him that by writing down "Recruiting for Military Activities", this would include murders? Because if so, I would like to hear that attorney give that evidence.

MR KOOPEDI: These are my instructions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Your instructions were what your client says the attorneys told him, which was to set down in general terms what he was asking amnesty for.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: And he hasn't done so.

MR KOOPEDI: Well his belief is that by firstly, stating that he was recruiting for military activities, the word "activities" would be broad enough to cover everything that he did. So ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And "recruiting" covers murder, does it? Please.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, perhaps I should make it clear that I am merely explaining to this Committee what the applicant believed and it becomes difficult for me to explain as if I was the applicant at the time of completing the form.

CHAIRPERSON: But he has not mentioned murder in any application before the cut-off date.

MR KOOPEDI: I submit and I submitted when we began, Chairperson, that he has not referred or mentioned the word "murder" in his application, but I have however ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Or killing.

MR KOOPEDI: Excuse me?

CHAIRPERSON: Not necessarily murder, it could be culpable homicide, some form of killing. He was engaged in the killing of a human being he has not mentioned.

MR KOOPEDI: He has not mentioned that. My submission was Chairperson, that when he was supposed to complete amnesty application forms, he had an opportunity to talk to very prominent lawyers I must say, Chairperson, their names appear on the application form, and their advice was that he should simply state in broad terms, just to make sure that he is included within the people who have applied. My submission is therefore that, Chairperson, this application did not intend to hide that he's applying for murder, that is why he in fact got advice.

ADV SIGODI: Is it your submission, was he in fact assisted by the attorneys in the completion of the form?

MR KOOPEDI: My instructions are that when the actual form was completed the attorneys were not with him. He had the opportunity to speak to these attorneys before he completed the form and what they said to him was that "you just need to state in broad terms, just to make sure that you're application goes through. If the TRC is going to require any further information, any details, they will be writing to you to get those details", because these attorneys were people who were actually assisting other amnesty applicants who had already received enquiries from the TRC in terms of saying "what are you applying for in particular?"

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I think we haven't got the power to grant such an amendment, unless you can point to some - any section of the Act, empowering us to do so. I believe there was a similar case and that in that instance, I'm not sure, but I think the ruling was that the applicant should apply to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court having inherent jurisdiction, could make an order in that connection, but I don't think we've got the power to grant amnesty where on the papers before us, or grant an amendment for an offence that's not been mentioned at all after the date of the 30th of September, the deadline for asking for amnesty for particular offences, because then we'll be introducing new offences that's not been asked for and everybody could come later and say "well, I've been advised" or "I've believed this or that and we're asking now for you to add the following offences to our list".

MR KOOPEDI: I am not certain if I can take this argument any further, Chairperson, and what the Honourable Judge de Jager has referred to as a case where we have had similar circumstances, it is my submission - and perhaps if given time, I could find a case like that, I have been involved in applications where an applicant would have said that "I am applying for the murder of X and any other incident" and this any other incident has been acknowledged to be what would seem as a new incident. I believe Chairperson, if you may recall at IDASA, I think it was in February, no you were not present, we did a matter of the Witbank Bomb Blast and one of the applicants who has appeared before you Chairperson, on other matters, Mr Dube, in his application form he has said nothing about the Witbank Bomb, but he had said "and other things which I might not recall". We had a similar situation where it was said "is this a new act for which amnesty is being sought or not?" But be that as it may, this applicant proceeded and was heard. But the point I am making is that ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, wasn't he heard on the basis that we'll allow him to lead the evidence but we'll give a ruling later whether in fact it could be amended? And as far as I know, the decision hasn't been made yet, or hasn't been made known yet.

MR KOOPEDI: Well yes, indeed that is so. I think the other thing is that, like I said this applicant has appeared in other matters where he has not specifically referred to a particular point and this applicant has been allowed to proceed on those applications. But be that as it may, that is not what I'm trying to use in support of my application, my application at the moment is that this applicant intended to apply for this murder specifically, the advice he got was that "put it in broad terms". It is my submission Chairperson, that a person who could have used ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He did not comply with the advice, did he?

MR KOOPEDI: In his mind he did.

CHAIRPERSON: In general terms, he would have said ...(inaudible - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He makes no mention of killing ...(intervention)

MR KOOPEDI: Your mike is not on, Chairperson. Your mike.

CHAIRPERSON: He makes no mention of murders, of killings, of anything of that nature, how can you say he meant to deal with them?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I think it is also important to take cognisance of the fact that the applicant completed this form in English, the applicant is not an English-speaking person. This applicant assumed - and these are my instructions, that for him to state as he did and to put in the precise, the years of his activities and which include everything that he did, this would cover him. The attorneys told him that if the Truth Commission wanted to know anything further, they will make enquiries, they will ask to that respect, but don't just put everything in the form. And I want to reiterate that the basis of our application is that this applicant intended to include this murder in his application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: This man is serving as a policeman? He's a policeman at present?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Since when is he a policeman, when did he join the Force?

MR MAMPHAGA: We were integrated from the MK in 1995, on the 1st of April.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So at least you would know that if something is asked from you, that you should attest to, that you should take an oath, you realise that it should be an oath? You know what an oath is.

MR MAMPHAGA: Well at that time you must know and understand that we were from the liberation movement, there's still ongoing training, there were many things we didn't know at that point in time.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But at that time you were already serving as a policeman for two years.

MR MAMPHAGA: Well by then I didn't even have my basic training.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to say anything further?

MR KOOPEDI: No thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to say anything?

MR NYAWUZA: No, Mr Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE ADDRESSES: Yes, Chairperson, just in relation to the facts of the matter, that the applicant did submit his application in '97 and only once we had in June 1999, we had written asking for further particulars, did the applicant come forward. That was the 25th of October 1999, where he submitted that he's applying for the murder as well, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MS COLERIDGE: So the applicant also had an opportunity, Chairperson, since '97, to submit further particulars in this instance and it is clear that he only applies for the recruiting of MKs and so forth, Chairperson. And in relation to where he states that his attorneys had informed him to state in broad terms, I'm sure they would have thought that by "broad terms" he could just state murder for instance and not go into the details of that specific act, which would probably be an explanation as to why the attorney would state "state it in broad terms". So Chairperson, my submission is that this application is not before the Committee and that the applicant, if so wishes, must apply to the High Court in this instance.

CHAIRPERSON: One matter that hasn't been mentioned by anybody, which concerns me, but I think it is perhaps a matter that we cannot deal with here today and it should be dealt with in the High Court, and that is if you look at page 4 of the papers, the last page of his application, paragraph 13(a) and (b), paragraph 13(a) refers to civil proceedings and paragraph 13(b) says -

Now in the statement we were supplied with this morning, prepared on behalf of the Sithole family, towards the end of the first page they say -

So there may be some connection there which should have been enquired into and wasn't, but I think we require a great deal more information before we can come to any assumption in that regard and it seems to me that on the basis of the - unless anyone wishes to say anything further, that on the basis of the argument we have heard so far, it appears clear that there was no application before the Committee before the cut-off date, in respect of murder or the unlawful killing of any person, which could subsequently be amended to reflect the killing of the deceased in this instance, the date, the time and the place and matters of that nature. What is being sought is not in my view, an amendment, what is being sought is to introduce an application in respect of a completely different event to that covered by the original application, which relates to recruitment, and that it is not within the powers of this Committee in terms of the Act, to permit a fresh application to be instituted after the cut-off date.

I would like the views of my colleagues on that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I agree.

ADV SIGODI: I also agree, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case there is no, in our view, application before us which we can hear.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just on clarification's sake, I just want you to turn to page 4 of the bundle. I just want to place on record that you will note this has been attested - there is a Commissioner's stamp which is dated the 10th of February 2000. I just want to clarify that the application wasn't commissioned to, so therefore on the 8th of February, Chairperson, we - on page 7 you can see 8th of February 2000 we instructed our Investigation Unit to have this attested to by a Commissioner of Oaths, and therefore that date is stipulated as 10th of February 2000, because it was done later, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears it was attested to by a Captain of some sort.

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson. I just wanted to clarify that, just for if at any later stage it will be queried. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it the same Captain? The same person. So I may have when I said it was attested earlier, I may have made a mistake, he may have attested it once and then decided to put his rubber stamp on it and it may have been done on the same date, that is the 10th of February 2000.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, it's a possibility.

MR KOOPEDI: Well Chairperson, in the light of the ruling, we are therefore unable, or we will not be proceeding with any other application because basically the applicant before you was here to apply for the murder of the deceased, Mr Sithole.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I've referred to in argument, a similar instance where it was advised that the applicant approach the High Court in order to get an order or to make a ruling, a declaratory order whether such an application could be made, a fresh application in connection with the murder if he intended to do so at the time before the cut-off date.

MR KOOPEDI: I am not sure as to what instructions will I get after this and what direction matters will take, but Chairperson, Committee Members if you may, the applicant has indicated that if it pleases the Committee he wishes to say something and I would request that he be granted an opportunity of saying something, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MAMPHAGA ADDRESSES: Well initially - well I understand the whole argument which is going on. When we applied for amnesty there are many things we were involved in and mostly what I used to do, mostly I used to do the recruiting a lot and there's so many things which I did also, which really if - because when you do the application they just said you know we do the application on what we were doing, we were specialising in, and as time goes on I felt, because we were told that we were all going to appear and there's still more information which will be dated, which we must come up with.

So at a certain stage we continued and I felt that it is important that during the process of recruiting somebody lost his life and I felt you know, it is important that now that thing remained in me for many years and I felt it is important to meet the family and because what we did in the past, we were in a war situation and I felt it is important that because I've done - when we were called in to do this - because many people didn't even come forward, but I felt that it is important in 1997 to come forward and you know I felt it would be better if I talk with the family because of what I did because in the past it was not myself. And during the process after I really became a Christian, I felt that it is important that I really need to meet the family because I've committed sin. Because even though we were in a group and some of those people are dead, that sin remained with me and I felt that it is important for me to confess it because judgement day is coming and I need to confess. There's no need for me to become a Christian and at the same time not to confess what I've done. So today, given this opportunity, even though there was arguments, I feel a little bit better because this things remained in me.

And maybe if I could also be given an opportunity to meet the family as well, because in the past there are many things I've done, I've recruited so many people, some of them I can't even remember their names. So if I could just be given an opportunity. I know what we did in the past I was not myself, I was not in my senses by then, but I felt that it is important that this day. Because the application was in general terms, I didn't state because if I can state exactly what I did in the past, it's a lot of things I did in the past.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I think that the best suggestion I can make is that your legal adviser speaks to Mr Nyawuza. We'll adjourn the matter now, we'll adjourn the hearing now for a short while and you can perhaps discuss that question.

Could you also please explain to the victims what the position is, that on a technical basis the application is not being heard, it is open to the applicant if he so desires, to apply to the High Court for leave to have the matter heard on the different basis and if that happens the victims will be notified afresh and they will be given ample opportunity to prepare and lead any evidence they wish to. I notice in the submission they handed in this morning, they referred to the fact that had they been given notice, they would have wanted to lead evidence. Well if there is to be a further hearing they can do so. But could you talk to them now about the question of meetings?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I will explain that, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We are now going to proceed with the matter of Andrew Chauke, Reginald Simelane, Alfred Simelane and Robbie Mabuza. As far as I can see, the legal advisers all remain the same.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The same as we announced for the previous matter.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just in relation to implicated people, as to the notifications, we have notified Joseph Motsepe who is here today, Chairperson, and Clement Modau, who is also present today, Chairperson. And in relation to the victims, it is the deceased, Benjamin Masinga. His brother Charles Masinga is representing the family, Chairperson. Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The two implicated persons, has it been confirmed that they didn't apply for amnesty?

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, and Mr Brian Koopedi will also just give us just a little statement in relation to the two implicated persons, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, are you ready, Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: I am ready, thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR KOOPEDI: No, Chairperson, the little papers I've given to you is the - it's going to be the testimony by the applicants and for you to follow better as they give evidence we should make those copies available, Chairperson.

Chairperson, perhaps for the record, my name is Brian Koopedi, I appear for the - it's a difficult one to say, for the applicants in this matter, four applicants and two implicated persons, Chairperson.

Perhaps it is important for me at this stage, Chairperson, to state that the four applicants together with the two implicated persons, were involved in the incident for which amnesty shall be sought. Chairperson, one of the implicated persons, Mr Clement Modau, has not applied for amnesty. His belief was that because he was granted indemnity for him to come into the country and he had disclosed this event, he laboured under the impression that he has the necessary pardon and has not applied.

The second implicated person, Mr Joseph Motsepe informs me that at the time when application forms were being completed he was stationed in Kimberley, he went to see an attorney in Kimberley, completed amnesty application forms and left those forms with this attorney. Attempts to trace this attorney has been fruitless, all I could get was that this attorney is in the Justice Department. We are not saying they should be joined as applicants, but what we are saying Chairperson, in terms of full disclosure we are merely giving an explanation as to why they did not apply when perhaps they should have applied, Chairperson. Thank you. We are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, carry on.

MR KOOPEDI: The first applicant in this matter, Chairperson, will be Mr Andrew Chauke. May he be sworn in, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: What language is he going to speak?

MR KOOPEDI: He can be sworn in in English.

ANDREW CHAUKE: (sworn states)

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

Mr Chauke, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter which has led to the killing of a person, Mr Masinga?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, it's true.

MR KOOPEDI: I will refer you to the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee. Is the form appearing on page 3 your application form?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And on page 8 there is a signature, is that your signature?

MR CHAUKE: That's true, that's my signature.

MR KOOPEDI: No you have prepared a statement to assist you in giving testimony to this Honourable Committee, is that correct?

MR CHAUKE: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you please proceed with the statement which shall be your evidence-in-chief.

MR CHAUKE:

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I disturb you for a moment? Shall we mark this Exhibit A.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR CHAUKE:

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Chauke, after having said what you've said, did you receive any financial benefit or personal benefit out of this attack and killing of Mr Masinga?

MR CHAUKE: Well truly speaking to answer you there, I didn't receive anything from whosoever or whatsoever. That is why in this particular day I myself, even my fellow comrades were so proud and happy that at least if we can meet the family of Mr Masinga and they should at least come and hear our statements and our commitment during that period of the struggle. So ...(intervention)

MR KOOPEDI: Well what I was about to ask you was, you have perhaps somehow alluded to this, but for purposes of clarity I believe one should ask you if you think there was a political motive and a political objective covering this act.

MR CHAUKE: Yes, there was.

MR KOOPEDI: And what would be those political reasons?

MR CHAUKE: Well as I've already stated in my statement that I've already read to the house, (1) during that particular period I was an activist, a member of the known Congress of South African Students, as well as a supporter of the United Democratic Front. By then the African National Congress was banned. And as I've already stated we had an underground cell which was commanded by me. We had comrades who timeously, more especially MK cadres, who visited our underground formation in order that no, they should really direct and politicise us in terms of how our kind of tactics can be used in order to overthrow the then apartheid regime. That is why I believe that this action is politically motivated.

MR KOOPEDI: Now inasfar as you can remember - one knows this happened some years ago, but inasfar as you can remember, do you think that you have fully disclosed all the relevant facts to this Honourable Committee?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, I believe I've explained everything what happened. ...(indistinct) maybe the other way around, I wasn't going to feel or to see it necessary to apply to the TRC in terms of what happened, so I believe I've told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission the truth.

MR KOOPEDI: Now perhaps just to make sure that you get an opportunity for this, is there anything you would want to say to the Masinga family, relatives and friends?

MR CHAUKE: Yes. Actually what I would like to say to the family of the late Mr Benjamin Masinga, I know it's very painful in order to find that you lost the beloved one in the house or maybe the guy was the breadwinner or whatsoever, but what I would like to emphasise to the family of Mr Masinga, I'm very, very sorry in what happened. So that is why I applied for amnesty and then I would be happy if the Committee, I mean the family of Mr Masinga could just go back and revise the situation by then. You know the country was at war, truly speaking, and then you wouldn't know that no, by then during the apartheid time, one would join the force to suppress a political organisation or political activities whatsoever. So I feel, even myself, that they are hurt, but it was this trouble. So that is why I'm asking for their apology.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief for this applicant, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members. There's only a few questions that we'd like to ask the concerned applicant in this matter.

Mr Chauke, you've alluded to that at some stage you were arrested, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's so.

MR NYAWUZA: And during your arrest did you at any stage appear before a Court of law?

MR CHAUKE: That's true, I did appear.

MR NYAWUZA: And having appeared before a Court of law, did you at any stage plead to the said offence?

MR CHAUKE: May you please repeat your question.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you plead to the said offence, that "I plead, I Mr X, plead guilty or not guilty to these and my defence, my plea explanation is X, Y, Z, did you do that at any stage?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, I did plead.

MR NYAWUZA: I'd like to refer the Honourable Committee Members to page 96 of the bundle. - page 95, excuse me, from page 95 onwards.

Mr Chauke, how did you know the girl that called you?

MR CHAUKE: Pardon?

MR NYAWUZA: How did you know the girl that called you? You stated that some girl - in your evidence-in-chief you stated that some girl called you whilst you were having a meeting at your place, how did you know her?

MR CHAUKE: Actually the lady stayed there almost opposite my house, that's how I knew her.

MR NYAWUZA: What's her name?

MR CHAUKE: Her name is Linkie.

MR NYAWUZA: It's Linkie?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: When you said she was staying opposite your house, did you grow up together?

MR CHAUKE: No, no.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long had you known her, on this particular day?

MR CHAUKE: I knew her for almost a period of three months because even myself, there at 35 Serote, I was not residing there.

MR NYAWUZA: So are you in essence saying that you'd been at 35 Serote, Atteridgeville, for about three months?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know the deceased in this matter?

MR CHAUKE: No, I didn't.

MR NYAWUZA: What was the relationship between the deceased and - excuse me. My apologies, Committee Members.

What was the relationship between Linkie and the deceased?

MR CHAUKE: What I can say is the relationship between Linkie and the deceased was that the deceased married Linkie's sister.

MR NYAWUZA: So would you agree with me when I say that the deceased had on occasion come to this particular house?

MR CHAUKE: No.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you saying you only saw him on that particular day? Was it for the first time that you saw him at this residence?

MR CHAUKE: The deceased?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes.

MR CHAUKE: No, it was on that particular day only. As I've stated in my statement, the deceased was famous in the township insofar as the political activists.

MR NYAWUZA: Ja, that is granted. I'm now referring to him being at this particular house. Would you agree with me when I say he used to come on occasion to this particular house?

MR CHAUKE: Ja, that I cannot answer.

MR NYAWUZA: Prior to the date in question, had you seen him in this house?

MR CHAUKE: Pardon?

MR SIBANYONI: Prior, before the date in question, had you seen the deceased in this house at this address?

MR CHAUKE: No.

MR NYAWUZA: So you were seeing him for the first time on this particular day, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MR NYAWUZA: And you knew that he was married to Linkie's sister, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's what I said.

MR NYAWUZA: So in - you stated again that on this particular day you were having a meeting where you were preparing petrol bombs and you were advised by Linkie that this chap is in the house.

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Would you elaborate on Linkie's participation in the whole thing.

MR CHAUKE: Yes, what I can say there is that as Linkie knew me there as a political activist and then it was sort of in support of political changes in overthrowing the apartheid regime. He knew that no, in the township or wherever, all over South Africa, that no cops were regarded as targets, that is why she came to me and told me that no, there is a target in the house.

MR NYAWUZA: So are you in essence saying Linkie had her brother-in-law killed because he was a police officer?

MR CHAUKE: No, that I cannot answer.

MR NYAWUZA: So if we take the matter further regarding Linkie, she called you, you went out, you went into this house. There's mention of Linkie having switched off the lights, can you put is in the light of all that?

MR CHAUKE: Well according to that, as I've already told the Committee here, that that of Linkie switching off the light there, what I've read was the statement which I made and is the true statement of whatever I know.

MR NYAWUZA: So you don't know anything about Linkie having switched off the light?

MR CHAUKE: No, I know nothing about that.

MR NYAWUZA: Linkie just called you, and what did she do thereafter, did she call you and went back into the house or she called you, she said "guys there's a target at our home" and then she sat with you? What happened, what happened of her?

MR CHAUKE: What happened of her actually, Mr - I don't know how ...(intervention)

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Nyawuza, Sir.

MR CHAUKE: Mr Nyawuza Sir, she called my outside as I've already stated in front of the Committee, then she told me that there is a target in the house there. Then what happened, I said to her "no problem, we'll sort that out". I went back inside the house. As to where did she go by then, I don't know. And I entered into the house, I explained to my comrades that no, there is a situation, it's this and this and that.

MR NYAWUZA: And when you went into the house to attack the deceased, was she there?

MR CHAUKE: No, she wasn't there.

MR NYAWUZA: Who had the axe?

MR CHAUKE: I had the axe.

MR NYAWUZA: And did you say that to the Court? Did you say you had the axe to the Court?

MR CHAUKE: To the Court of Law?

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, Sir.

MR CHAUKE: No, I didn't say that, I had reasons for that.

MR NYAWUZA: Who did you say had the axe?

MR CHAUKE: I would say by then as one can explain the situation of what happened in Court, even you yourself Mr Nyawuza, you will recall by the time that this incident happened and more especially of a person of Mr Benjamin Masinga's calibre, the country was at war and in Court they would never allow a person to just go and agree and only that no, I did this, this and this. I wanted to protect myself against - maybe I could be found guilty and be hanged by that time. So that is why I didn't actually disclose the whole truth to the Court by then, because by then the Courts would never listen to whatsoever statement of any political activist being arrested and being tried.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Chauke, how many of you had been arrested? Of the six of you that I see here, how many of you had been arrested at the time?

MR CHAUKE: I was the first one to be arrested. As I've already stated, in three days I was arrested and then the rest of the comrades then followed.

MR NYAWUZA: All of them were arrested?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: So at the time of your plea all six of you were arrested and all six of you were comrades, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MR NYAWUZA: And you are stating that you didn't tell the Court that "I, Andrew Chauke, had the axe on this particular day, but Clement my comrade had it", because you didn't want to be hanged, so you wanted Clement to be hanged.

MR CHAUKE: So well to answer your question there, I cannot say that I wanted Clement to be hanged, it was the other way round, I needed a scapegoat.

MR NYAWUZA: So in needing your scapegoat you had to put somebody on the danger line, being Clement Modau, if I'm not mistaken. Is that Clement Modau that Modau that you are referring to?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Nyawuza. You know I wonder if you were once arrested during the course of the struggle whatsoever.

MR NYAWUZA: No, I wasn't.

MR CHAUKE: You wasn't.

MR NYAWUZA: No, Sir.

MR CHAUKE: So let me tell you the situation actually what was happening there. You see, the cops, the police will come and arrest you and after arresting you they would never treat you the same like what is happening presently, you would be tortured, beaten, things like that, so that no, you must make a confession in order that that confession they should just use it against you and your fellow comrades.

MR NYAWUZA: But Mr Chauke, I believe that we have gone past that stage of an investigating officer being taken to Court, pianos being taken and you being charged. You were now in a Court of law where you had a Magistrate presiding over the matter, where you had a Prosecutor who was leading evidence for the State, you had the right to say whatever happened. This is during the plea stage, we had gone past the investigation. The torturing came with the investigation and when the IO felt that this matter is now ready for trial, he had gone past the torturing stage. My question is extremely simple and straightforward. All six of you were comrades.

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MR NYAWUZA: If all six of you were convicted of murder, all six of you were going to be hanged because as you've stated, Mr Masinga was of a calibre that necessitated the Presiding Officers at that particular time, to impose a death sentence. So if you say you told the Magistrate, the Presiding Officer on that particular day, that you were not having the axe, Clement was, and your version of saying no, Clement was having the thing is that you avoided being hanged. So my question is, so you wanted Clement to be hanged, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: Maybe Mr Nyawuza, you are repeating the very same thing that you have already asked and I believe I did answer your question.

MR NYAWUZA: You haven't responded to my question. What was your response?

MR CHAUKE: I did respond to your question, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: What was your response?

MR CHAUKE: I told you that no, seeing that knowing the Security Forces by that time, they use force actually you see, if a person is arrested he was going to be tortured and whatsoever. That is why I said now, this statement which I made in the Regional Court, wherever I appeared and during that presence I was escorted by the very same torture of mine and those people threatened that no, if you are not going to implicate the statement to the Magistrate's Court, on our return back from Court you will be dead in the cell. That is why I said ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Chauke, in fact you're telling us that at that stage you told lies to the Court, you didn't tell them the truth.

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think the only concern that Mr Nyawuza has is why did you put the blame on one of your comrades, why didn't you blame somebody else? Now you're blaming him and bringing him into trouble. Could you explain why you chose to put the blame on him?

MR CHAUKE: I chose to put the blame on him because I was tortured.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You stated before this Committee that you knew the deceased and further that you knew that ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, he said that he heard of the deceased, he didn't know personally but he knew about him. He was a well-known policeman in the vicinity.

MR CHAUKE: That's true, Mr Chairperson.

MR NYAWUZA: I'll rephrase my question then.

You knew about Rambo, you hadn't seen him personally, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: So on this day in question you were seeing him for the first time, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MR NYAWUZA: But you knew that Rambo was a brother-in-law to Linkie, is that so as well?

MR CHAUKE: You see, Mr Nyawuza, actually if you can go back to my statement that I've already written here, this statement explains clearly of what I knew about him.

MR NYAWUZA: So Mr Chauke you stated before this Committee that there was no personal gain in whatever you were doing, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: So your killing of Rambo was to destabilise, for want of a better word, the working of the police officers and in essence affecting the whole system of apartheid, is that so?

MR CHAUKE: That's true, Mr Nyawuza.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Chauke, you didn't know that there was a problem between the deceased and his wife, would you have known that?

MR CHAUKE: I didn't know about that.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay. Because the version of the victims would be there was friction between the wife and the deceased. In actual fact the deceased had at some stage been a resident at the address in which he was found and killed by yourselves and they were in separation during this process and on this fateful day he had come to his in-laws to collect some items that belonged to him, that is how he met his untimely death. Would, Mr Chauke, there have been somebody else at the house besides the deceased on this particular day?

MR CHAUKE: Well to answer you there, Mr Nyawuza, myself and following comrades, when we entered that house there was nobody inside that house. That is why I've mentioned clearly in my statement, because I was the first guy to enter into that house. Maybe the other way round though, there were people watching you see, that I cannot disclose. But when I entered there, I entered with my six comrades and then we carried out this murder of Mr Masinga.

MR NYAWUZA: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Chauke, I just want to take you back to your statement - that's Exhibit A for the record, just the second paragraph, you said that you went - the third line of that paragraph, you said that you went for training, can you just elaborate on that for us? What kind of training did you undergo and who trained you?

MR CHAUKE: The last paragraph?

MS COLERIDGE: I'll just read it to you. You said -

My question to you is, what training did you undergo?

MR CHAUKE: If you can further read the statement here, it does answer your question. We were however not trained in using weapons. The training that we had was political, to be politically conscious, we should understand the constitution properly of the United Democratic Front as well as the mother organisation, the African National Congress, of which it was banned by then.

MS COLERIDGE: So it wasn't formal training per se, it was more educational in a sense?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: And then, who delivered the conferences and the meetings? Who spoke to you in relation to this?

MR CHAUKE: That's ...(indistinct) I say that by then we had MK cadres who then infiltrated the country without being identified and then as one can remember, by then people used to - more especially the MK, used combat names.

MS COLERIDGE: So you can't give us any names?

MR CHAUKE: No, I'm not ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: And combat names, combat names for instance?

MR CHAUKE: Combat names yes, that I can give, but now as an underground cell, the way it was operating, the following day you find that no, they send a new face that you don't even know that will just come and tell you and give you his combat name, that's all. Deliver his educational speeches, political pamphlets that were supposed to be distributed to the masses and leave the country.

MS COLERIDGE: How old were you when this incident occurred?

MR CHAUKE: By 1986 I was 28 years - 18, because I was born on the 7th, 1968.

MS COLERIDGE: So you were 18 years old?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: You said just in the third paragraph, that you were ordered to form an underground unit of MK, who ordered you to form this unit?

MR CHAUKE: As I've already explained that the persons who ordered to us to form this underground MK cell, is those MK cadres.

MS COLERIDGE: Surely you must be able to give us even a codename or something.

MR CHAUKE: Yes, that is - I'm not afraid, that I can disclose because they were using combat names. One can say - you see combat names, maybe I can say Jack Magoba, then you won't believe maybe it's a combat name, but now it's a name and surname.

MS COLERIDGE: Mr Chauke, just answer the question. What was the person's combat name that you knew of, who ordered you to form that.

MR CHAUKE: That was Raphael Molebatsi.

MS COLERIDGE: Can you repeat that?

MR CHAUKE: Raphael Molebatsi.

MS COLERIDGE: Was that his combat name?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: And then in the fifth paragraph you say that you were appointed as the Commander basically, who appointed you as the Commander of that unit? Was it the same person or what?

MR CHAUKE: Actually there as we had those different cadres visiting our underground cell, there was a need whereby we cannot all be responsible in terms of executing different tasks of the organisation, so ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: The question is straightforward, who made you Commander?

MR CHAUKE: It's Mr Jeffrey Sibiya.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just on page 2, the second paragraph, you said that you were in a meeting, now we know that the applicants and the implicated persons were at that meeting that you called, that was just before you attacked the deceased, who was all in that meeting besides you?

MR CHAUKE: All the applicants who are sitting here.

MS COLERIDGE: Anybody else?

MR CHAUKE: Nobody else.

MS COLERIDGE: And then you went further, you stated that you were building and preparing petrol bombs as you were planning to attack another policeman's house, was that plan actually executed?

MR CHAUKE: No, it wasn't executed.

MS COLERIDGE: Why wasn't it executed?

MR CHAUKE: It was disturbed by the arrival of this lady who told us that no, there is a target in the house. Then I realised that Rambo was the more significant target than the one which we planned to go and attack.

MS COLERIDGE: And what did you do with those petrol bombs?

MR CHAUKE: With these petrol bombs, since well that we're not trained in arms whatsoever, we used petrol bombs as our main weapons because you that no, if maybe we are going to attack more especially a police vehicle or a soldier's vehicle, you know that the petrol bomb will have much effect, that those people realised that no, there are people who are defending themselves.

MS COLERIDGE: Then I just want to ask you a question in relation to the state the deceased was in before you poured the petrol over him and burnt him. Was he still alive at that stage?

MR CHAUKE: Well truly speaking, the deceased was unconscious.

MS COLERIDGE: He was unconscious.

MR CHAUKE: Ja, he was unconscious.

MS COLERIDGE: Okay. And then just one other question in relation to the axe, I see that Reginald mentions - on page 45 of the bundle, Chairperson, he stated that you hit the deceased with the axe.

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MS COLERIDGE: At paragraph 7 of page 45, Reginald states - well it's actually the Investigating Officer that questions Reginald, and he states -

What is your comment on that?

MR CHAUKE: Well my comment to that is this, I've already mentioned personally what happened. I think that may be asked to Mr Reginald Simelane, because I've said what exactly happened and that's what ...(indistinct)

MS COLERIDGE: And then page 52 there's another statement by Mr Reginald, dated the 29.01.'88. It's on page 52 of the bundle, in the fourth paragraph he also states -

And then he goes on further, he says -

What do you say about that?

MR CHAUKE: But that Mrs Coleridge, I can refer that as - compare that with the very statement that I've argued that this chap maybe was under pressure and force of the Security Forces tortures, that is why he mentioned such things.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Had you beforehand decided, all of you, that you'll blame Clement, because he's now saying Clement used the axe, you said he used the axe? Did you, before you went to Court, decide that you should put the blame on Clement?

MR CHAUKE: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did it come now that he mentioned that it was Clement who used the axe and you said it was Clement who used the axe?

MR CHAUKE: That is why, Mr Chair, that I've already answered in that question, as to how did he was trying to - maybe he said that Clement used the axe. I can answer it the way as it is similar to my statement due to torture.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but how did you decide to blame the same person? Isn't that because Clement didn't apply for amnesty now and you're changing the story to protect him?

MR CHAUKE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand you, if you have committed the act and are being tortured, you are trying to put the blame on somebody else, but Reginald didn't commit the act, he didn't hit him with an axe, so why should he now be putting the blame for hitting him with an axe on the wrong person, why didn't he mention you?

MR CHAUKE: That I cannot answer because what happened, Mr Chair, we were not living in the very same cell, the other people were taken, be tortured in Pretoria North, the others Atteridgeville, the others behind the railway stations.

MS COLERIDGE: Can you just tell us, your other comrades at the scene of the incident, the house, can you just tell us each applicant, what his role was in the attack?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, that I can tell. As I've already stated because it is also written in my what-you-call ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: You just broadly stated on page 3, the third line, you said -

Can you just tell us who the "they" were and what their roles were?

MR CHAUKE: So as I've already mentioned here that I ordered Joseph to hand over the petrol he was holding and that he must stay behind and keep a lookout for the forces if they would come, and also advised Clement and the others that we had taken Rambo to Kabo. So coming to your question, here it is stated in the last paragraph -

...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, just stop there. I'm not talking about the incident where he was burnt and taken away from his house, I'm talking about the time when he was in the house where the assault took place. I want to know what each person did.

MR CHAUKE: I've already stated it here in the second paragraph, I said -

Referring to the complainant(sic).

MS COLERIDGE: Mr Chauke, either you don't know what your other comrades had done at that particular time, you can tell us that, or you could see what they were doing at the time. And you're saying they had sticks and stones, did they hit the deceased with the sticks and stones or were they just in possession of the sticks and stones.

MR CHAUKE: That's right they did - no, the did hit the deceased with the sticks and stones.

MS COLERIDGE: Now please Mr Chauke, who hit the deceased with the sticks?

MR CHAUKE: As I've already mentioned here that my comrades had sticks and stones, because I've ordered the two comrades, that is Clement Modau and Joseph Motsepe to stay alert outside, so Reginald Simelane hit Mr Masinga with a stick, Alfred Simelane also hit him with the sticks and stones.

MS COLERIDGE: So they threw him with the stones.

MR CHAUKE: Ja.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just another question. You stated - all the applicants stated in their application forms that Benjamin harassed the community, can you just tell us what did that entail?

MR CHAUKE: Well that one can say as members of the student organisations we were unlawfully holding meetings and then what the State used to do in terms of if they can hear that there is a gathering, illegal gathering in a certain township, they sent the police force there and then what Mr Masinga was doing - you know a person is very much to be, you can see that no, in that particular vehicle there's a person is notorious there you see, by means of firing teargas to the students. And in our gathering, maybe in the evening or the following day after there it would happen that maybe there is a comrade who fell during incident of shooting and whatsoever. Now as student activists, one student would give that information that now you see, a certain cop there in that vehicle is the one who is calling himself Mr Rambo, that is why he was so notorious. That's how I can answer that.

MS COLERIDGE: So who actually gave you the information regarding Benjamin?

MR CHAUKE: The person who gave the information regarding Mr Masinga - I just can't understand your question clearly, meaning who gave information that where he is or?

MS COLERIDGE: That he was targeting the community and harassing the community and that he was actually a target. Who told you that?

MR CHAUKE: As I've already explained that we are as student activists holding meetings and then one wouldn't know who is that particular person in an illegal gathering who is speaking, if a person is a student activist, wants to voice his voice, he just raises up his hand and then ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: Just why I'm asking you that question is, firstly you had another target in mind, you had another policeman, you had your petrol bombs, you were ready to go and attack someone else's house.

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: And then on the spur of the moment it changed and you targeted Mr Masinga.

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: Now I just want to understand that. You didn't know the person or anything like that.

MR CHAUKE: No actually to answer that question there, what we were planning for - because the very same policeman which he was on our schedule for attack, it was just not a matter of that we were just going there to attack his house so that he can feel that no, a cop has been made by the United Democratic Front at that time that no, police officers, soldiers, should resign and join the democratic forces.

MS COLERIDGE: So did you have a schedule as you just said now? That the same policeman was on your schedule, did you have something like that?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

MS COLERIDGE: And can you just explain to us what your schedule consisted of, who was on that schedule of yours?

MR CHAUKE: You see this policeman, I don't even know his name but I knew him as a uniform policeman and then according to our underground meetings that we had - during the night or during meetings we do conduct our own investigation that no, this certain policeman who is really refusing to join the forces where does he stay.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just Joseph, you said that he had the petrol can, is that Joseph Motsepe?

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thanks Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've said you underwent military training in Angola, the last sentence of your statement.

MR CHAUKE: Yes, yes, Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where in Angola?

MR CHAUKE: Where in Angola? I went to Luanda, from Luanda I was taken to Richard Bhani Molokwana military training camp in the eastern direction of Angola.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Which training camp?

MR CHAUKE: Richard Bani Molokwana training camp.

ADV SIGODI: I just want some clarity on your association with the lady who came into the house to tell you that Rambo in the house opposite you. Did she know that on that day you were planning to attack a policeman, any policeman?

MR CHAUKE: No, she didn't know because as I've already explained that no, we were working as an underground what-you-call, we were working underground by then. What she knew only was that I am the political activist in that area.

ADV SIGODI: So what I want to find out is why did she come to tell you that there was a policeman there?

MR CHAUKE: She came to tell me that there was a policeman in the house because of she knew and she heard some various calls from the United Democratic Front, COSAS, that no, at this stage in time people should isolate police and soldiers because these people they are the ones who are disturbing the way forward to democracy.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, she came to you because she wanted you to do something about this policeman?

MR CHAUKE: What I can say there is I cannot answer for her, what I can say is she came there knowing that we are political activists and then we are the people who can try and solve the situation.

ADV SIGODI: And you say that you didn't know this policeman before, you'd never seen him.

MR CHAUKE: That's right, ja.

ADV SIGODI: So when you entered the house what steps did you take to make sure that the person whom you attacked was in fact actually a policeman?

MR CHAUKE: May you please repeat your question.

ADV SIGODI: I want to know, when you entered the house you found him sitting there alone, is that right?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And what steps did you take to confirm that he was in fact the desired target?

MR CHAUKE: As I've already mentioned in my statement, it's the second paragraph there, that when this lady came she came and told me that no, there is a policeman that is Rambo inside the house and then I imagined that name, ...(indistinct) is that notorious cop who is destabilising our political activists in this township.

ADV SIGODI: So when you entered, the first person you saw you just assumed that he must be the policeman that you were told about.

MR CHAUKE: I didn't assume, the lady told me that he's a policeman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What bothers my colleague, it could have been the owner of the house sitting there, how did you know it's a policeman and not an innocent man sitting there?

MR CHAUKE: Because you know we had - as comrades we had a belief that any kind of an informer wouldn't just disclose a false statement to comrades because they knew by then that comrades were people who didn't take any information that wouldn't lead them to the correct channel.

ADV SIGODI: So when she told you that there is a policeman or there is a target in the house, what else did she say to you?

MR CHAUKE: Nothing.

ADV SIGODI: She just left her home, came to your house, called you outside, spoke to you alone and said to you "there's a policeman in the house".

MR CHAUKE: That's right.

ADV SIGODI: But then so what, what could she possibly expect you to do? Did she say anything else that she wanted you to do?

MR CHAUKE: No, she didn't, she came there as a person who was just coming to highlight the comrades that no, there is a target situated in a certain house.

ADV SIGODI: Did she say there is a target in the house?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, that's what she said. She said there's a policeman there and it's a target and she mentioned the name of Rambo.

ADV SIGODI: So she knew that you were targeting policemen.

MR CHAUKE: She knew that.

CHAIRPERSON: And she said the name Rambo?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please look at the bundle at page 11, well that is the typed version, at page 12 is the handwritten version. Is that a letter written by you to the Amnesty Committee?

MR CHAUKE: That's the letter, Chairperson. That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: In which you say -

Is that what you wrote?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, Sir, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you. And now one other matter I'd like to clarify. You've told us a bit about your giving evidence and that was on the 25th of April 1986, six days after the killing, is that correct?

MR KOOPEDI: Which page was that, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 95. The bottom of the page, the last paragraph you say -

Did you say that?

MR CHAUKE: No, Mr Chair, I never said that.

CHAIRPERSON: So the record is wrong?

MR CHAUKE: Ja, this record is wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: And so you went, it is recorded as you're saying -

Did you say that? Did you go and call her from the shebeen?

MR CHAUKE: No, Mr Chairman. As I've already indicated in my statement where I met the lady and I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so once again the Court record is defective?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it's then recorded as saying -

MR CHAUKE: No, that she did not mention to me.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR CHAUKE: No, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So all this is wrongly recorded, wrongly interpreted?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, Mr Chairman, if one can take a thorough trace and make a very thorough trace, most of these statements that time when we were tried, Mr Chairman, they were solemnly(?) written by the cops.

CHAIRPERSON: This was evidence you gave before the Court, it was not something written by a policeman. This is the recording of the evidence given before the Magistrate.

MR CHAUKE: I do understand what the Chairperson is saying, that is why I'm saying that I am denying that.

CHAIRPERSON: It was written by the cops, it was testified to by you. What I have been reading from is, as your counsel will explain to you, is a transcript of the Court record.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And it was a tape recording by Lubbe Opnames, like we've got a tape recording here.

MR CHAUKE: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say all this is wrong, you didn't say any of what I have read to you?

MR CHAUKE: Yes, Mr Chairman, as I've already indicated while I was asked by the attorney, Mr Nyawuza, that all this other incident that one confessed during that time, it was in terms of defending himself that one mustn't be prosecuted.

CHAIRPERSON: But this isn't confessing, this isn't defending yourself, this is merely telling what happened.

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you go on, it's stated here -

Did you say so in Court, or is this also wrongly recorded?

MR CHAUKE: That is why, Mr Chairman, as Mr Chairman can say that all this what-you-call, a record, the main reason that I made the one to say this is true, it was that one wanted to be, not be prosecuted by the Court of law.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, what I'm asking you now, what I've read to you, was that also wrongly recorded or was it in fact correctly recorded as your statement in Court?

MR CHAUKE: This Mr Chairman, as I've already answered that no, I came here to tell the Committee, the Commission, about exactly what happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, no I'm not asking you that, listen to the question please. I'm asking you whether this was wrongly recorded or whether it was correctly recorded.

MR CHAUKE: It was correctly recorded.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But the rest of the previous paragraph was wrongly recorded, according to what you've told us a minute ago.

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Chairman, as I've already explained to the Chair and the Committee that no, for me to say the previously that were not correctly recorded, I couldn't actually clearly understand what Mr Chairman wanted to put this as the what-you-call, as one what I've said or as one said this according to the Investigation Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: I still don't understand. What I asked you was, "did you say this in Court?", and you said "No" it's not what you said.

MR CHAUKE: That is why I reiterated to Mr Chairman, I did get the clarity from Judge de Jager there, so presently to rectify what I've answered to you, Mr Judge, I said it's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So this is what you told the Magistrate?

MR CHAUKE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You told the Magistrate that you went looking for this young woman at the shebeen, you called her out of the shebeen.

MR CHAUKE: According to the - that is why I said that this statement is the statement of the, which was made by the then security officers who were investigating this thing. And then I did explain to the Committee that during my taking to Court, I was escorted by the very same Security Forces who arrested me and then inside the vehicle they threatened me that no, "you are going to talk this statement, you've got nothing to do with your own statement".

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying now that the Security Police told you to say that you followed this young girl to the shebeen and called her out of the shebeen?

MR CHAUKE: That's right, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: They made that up, it's not true. That's what you're saying now.

MR CHAUKE: As I've already said, Mr Chairman, that this statement is from the Security Forces. I'm having my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you simply, is it true or not.

MR CHAUKE: It's not true, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Not true.

MR CHAUKE: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: And she didn't go in and turn out the lights.

MR CHAUKE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence for this applicant.

MR KOOPEDI: I would then ask permission to call in the next applicant, if there are no further questions for this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next one?

MR KOOPEDI: We will call Simelane, Reginald Jabu Simelane.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just hear from the previous witness, who is "seun"?

Sorry Mr Chauke, could you tell me who is "seun"?

MR CHAUKE: That's Mr Joseph Motsepe.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thanks.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Mr Simelane is ready to be sworn in. Reginald Simelane.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before we go on with that, there was a lot said by the previous applicant and it appeared also from the portion that I put to him of the transcript of the evidence given at the trial, about this young woman whom he called Linkie. Has she been notified as an implicated party?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, not according to my knowledge. It's just that there was no name mentioned of this particular person, Chairperson, and so for that reason as well we were uncertain ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well he mentions the relationship, it's not just some unknown person.

MS COLERIDGE: I take your point, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't she be notified? And on the evidence we have heard and appeared, she appeared to have gone to call them.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just also if my memory serves me correct, it was also - I can't point you in the right direction, but I'm sure I can find it, where one of the applicants state that they actually also approached this woman and they knew that this girl was the sister-in-law of the policeman, Chairperson, and therefore it didn't seem as if it was an implicated person but actually themselves went to this person, and I must just get the page reference. So therefore in our minds, Chairperson, she wasn't an implicated person in the way the applicant is describing her now, but it was almost as if they as a group went to this woman or this girl and said, and almost said "is he there" for instance, "is he at home" or something to that effect, and therefore we didn't notify her, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's something that should be looked into.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) put it to him then, that that was the case.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Mr Simelane is ready to be sworn in.

ADV SIGODI: What language is he going to speak?

MR KOOPEDI: He wishes to speak in Zulu.

REGINALD JABU SIMELANE: (sworn states)

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

Mr Simelane, I will refer you to page thirteen of the bundle of documents which I am showing to you now. On page thirteen of this bundle of documents there's an application, is this your application form?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: On page 19 of the same bundle of documents there is a signature, is that your signature?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you have prepared a brief statement to support your application or to be your evidence-in-chief, is that correct?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, perhaps we could mark that Exhibit B, that would be the statement of Jabu Simelane.

Would you then read to this Honourable Committee your statement.

MR SIMELANE:

That's all.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Simelane, your evidence together with what was said by your co-applicant, which you confirmed, do you think that you have fully disclosed to this Honourable Committee what your role and status was at that time?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, that is the truth.

MR KOOPEDI: Now did you receive any financial or personal benefit out of attacking and killing the deceased?

MR SIMELANE: No.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you regard this action as having politically motivated and also having a political objective?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, this offence was politically motivated. As indicated in my statement that I was an activist at school and I was a member of COSAS, so that everything that I did, we all did this as people who were fighting the then government, so that we were fighting the enemy of the community.

ADV SIGODI: Could you ask him to speak a little bit slower, for interpretation. Thanks.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you repeat what you've just said.

MR SIMELANE: The objective of killing the deceased was political, there was no financial motivation. I was a member of COSAS at the time. I was also a member of the Student Representative Council at school, and we did everything that we did fighting the then government and this included attacking the police and State apparatus.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief of this applicant.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Reginald Simelane, is it correct that on the day in question you held a meeting, an SRC meeting with Andrew Chauke, Ruben Mabuza, Clement Modau, Alfred Simelane and Joseph Motsepe?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Can you kindly tell this hearing how many of you comprised, made up the SRC.

MR SIMELANE: Are you referring to this one particular meeting or are you referring to the membership of the SRC?

MR NYAWUZA: I'm referring to the membership of the SRC.

MR SIMELANE: To answer this question I would say there were six of us on the day of the attack, but the entire SRC Committee comprised thirteen members.

CHAIRPERSON: Thirteen?

MR NYAWUZA: 13.

So in meetings of - what formed the quorum for an SRC to hold a meeting as there were thirteen members. How many of you would form a quorum and say "look the decision that we're taking here today will be binding on the other members who are absent today"?

MR SIMELANE: There were six of us SRC members and at the same time we were members of the underground movement that had been formed. The thirteen members does not necessarily refer to the SRC members but it refers to the general Committee of the SRC.

MR NYAWUZA: So, I'm not able ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: May the speaker please repeat the answer.

MR SIMELANE: There were thirteen of us members of the SRC that was at high school and on the 19th there were sixteen(sic) of us SRC members.

MR NYAWUZA: And were you representing the underground movement on this particular day, or the SRC?

MR SIMELANE: We were an underground movement.

MR NYAWUZA: So in essence this was not an SRC meeting, it was an underground cell meeting, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: On those particular days we used to hold meetings and other comrades had not yet arrived. On that day we had a meeting convened for the SRC, but other members had not yet arrived.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Simelane, on this particular day were you holding a meeting for the SRC, or for the underground movement, or for both?

MR SIMELANE: On that day our underground movement was planning an operation with an intention to burn the house of our target.

MR NYAWUZA: And who was your target on this particular day?

MR SIMELANE: Burning the house of a policeman.

MR NYAWUZA: Who was this police officer whose house was going to be burnt?

MR SIMELANE: Sithole who resided as Siso.

MR NYAWUZA: How far is Siso from where you held the meeting?

MR SIMELANE: In terms of kilometres I would say more-or-less four kilometres.

MR NYAWUZA: I am not so good with distances, but if you can - we're now at Visagie and Andries, how far from here to Church Street? Do you go beyond Church Street or is it the other side of Church Street?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, you'd go past Church Street. You'd go as down as the taxi rank.

MR NYAWUZA: So where you waiting for other comrades to pitch up or the six of you were okay?

MR SIMELANE: We were waiting for other comrades to arrive.

MR NYAWUZA: And did you see this Linkie come in and call Andrew?

MR SIMELANE: No, I only heard someone call him, but I didn't see that person.

MR NYAWUZA: Where was Andrew at the time of Linkie calling him, was he with you in this meeting or was he in the kitchen? Where was he?

MR SIMELANE: He was in the meeting with us.

MR NYAWUZA: This meeting, were you holding this meeting in a house that's divided into separate rooms or you were holding it somewhere else? Can you just put us in the vicinity of the meeting?

MR SIMELANE: There was a shack on the premises, that is where we held this meeting, in this shack.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that at the house of one, Gilbert?

MR SIMELANE: That was Andrew Chauke's parent's place.

MR NYAWUZA: How long had you known Andrew Chauke?

MR SIMELANE: I had known him from school. I think it was about two years since I had known him.

MR NYAWUZA: Where was he resident at all times? Did you know where he was resident? Sorry.

MR SIMELANE: Andrew Chauke used to reside at Serote, where he resided with his grandmother, but he was originally from Tembisa.

MR NYAWUZA: So in the two years that you had known Andrew Chauke, will I be correct in saying he had been residing at his grandmother's house at Serote?

MR SIMELANE: I knew him from school because we were both activists.

MR NYAWUZA: My question Mr Simelane is, in the two years that you've known him, when both of you were attending the same school, would I be correct if I say he was staying at Serote?

MR SIMELANE: As I have explained that he came from Tembisa, but he used to visit his grandmother at Serote.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Simelane, Andrew Chauke is from Tembisa, that is what you're telling us today.

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And is it correct that you and Andrew were attending school in Saulsville? Is it Saulsville or Saulsridge?

MR SIMELANE: Saulsridge yes, that's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And then is it further correct that Andrew Chauke stayed with his granny during his years of schooling at Saulsridge, is that so?

MR KOOPEDI: That has not been the evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you putting this to him?

MR NYAWUZA: Chairperson, the evidence of Andrew Chauke was that he'd been staying at 35 Serote Street for three months.

Mr Chauke, in the two years that you had known ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, you're not addressing Mr Chauke now, you're addressing Mr Simelane.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Simelane, excuse me.

Mr Simelane, in the two years that you had known Mr Chauke, of common cause is that he was from Tembisa, of further common cause is that both of you were attending at Saulsridge High or, but you were attending school in Saulsridge, Pretoria, and of further common cause is that he was staying with his granny at 35 Serote Street, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: As I have explained I had known him from school, we were both activists, but he only used to visit his grandmother at Serote Street, but whether he was resident there permanently or not, I cannot say.

MR NYAWUZA: So you in essence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it's correct to say that was common cause, that was your version and it has not been to by the applicant.

MR NYAWUZA: I withdraw that, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Simelane, how far were you resident from 35 Serote Street?

MR SIMELANE: From my home it could have been more than fifteen houses, I can say it was about fifteen houses away from my home.

MR NYAWUZA: So in terms of minutes walk, you'd walk about five minutes to where Andrew was resident?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And then in relation to the other co-applicants, would you regard the distance that you were staying from Andrew as closer or further than the others?

MR SIMELANE: No, the distance is not the same.

MR NYAWUZA: Ja, I'm saying in relation to yours, would you say you were nearer or you were further than some of them?

MR SIMELANE: Andrew was closest to me.

MR NYAWUZA: So would you on occasion - how often, to put it, did you go to Andrew's granny's place at Serote?

MR SIMELANE: As I have mentioned before, we were at his place when we held the meeting. We were not close friends, such that we could visit him all the time, but our association was political because we were activists.

MR NYAWUZA: So he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on.

Was this house, the house in Serote Street, was that his grandmother's house?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not his parents' place?

MR SIMELANE: His parents' home was at Tembisa.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

I take it you'll be some time.

MR NYAWUZA: I think we can adjourn, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Till when shall we adjourn?

MR NYAWUZA: When the Committee's ready.

CHAIRPERSON: What time do you think?

MS COLERIDGE: I suggest one thirty or quarter to two.

CHAIRPERSON: Well shall we say one thirty if we are ready at one thirty, I don't know what arrangements have been made for everybody, including all the applicants. If we are ready, one thirty, otherwise quarter to two.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I don't know if it would be unreasonable to try and suggest to the Committee, my learned friends and the people supporting us, that there are only two other applicants left who have very short evidence, wouldn't we rather perhaps finish that and take the lunch adjournment when we're finished? I don't know what's the feeling of other people.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, it's a bit more complicated than that, our Logistic Officers would obviously by now have arranged lunch for victims and all of us, so it would probably be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take the adjournment now.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

REGINALD JABU SIMELANE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: (Cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Simelane, you stated that Andrew was called by this woman that you didn't see and then he went out, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: ...(inaudible) spoke to this girl and came back.

MR SIMELANE: She called him outside and then he returned into the house later on and informed us on what had transpired.

MR NYAWUZA: And then what did he tell you, what did Andrew tell you?

MR SIMELANE: When Andrew returned he informed us that we were no longer going to carry out the original operation because another more important operation had arisen. He told us that Rambo was in the neighbourhood, that is why we had to change and do that operation.

MR NYAWUZA: And you then took a decision to attack Rambo instead of taking the previous operation, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: What steps did you take after he had told you? What is it that you in actual fact did, what happened?

MR SIMELANE: After he had told us of Rambo's presence, we then planned on what to use, and I'm referring to weapons that we could use to attack the target. We then managed to get an axe and sticks as well as the petrol bombs that we had intended to use in the original operation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Coming to that, this was a policeman, a notorious policeman, didn't he carry a weapon, a gun?

MR SIMELANE: We all know that police officers carry firearms, but on that day we did not know whether he had it in his possession or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you went to kill him without yourself having a gun.

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you know that he was asleep?

MR SIMELANE: As I've already mentioned, Andrew went out to check what the situation was like and he returned, so we planned on surprising him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He said what? What did he report back to you after he went to investigate?

MR SIMELANE: He informed us that the policeman was indeed in the house and he was alone.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the policeman was?

INTERPRETER: In the house.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did he say the policeman was asleep or what did he say?

MR SIMELANE: He said he was seated at a table, but did not explain whether he was asleep or doing any other thing.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And was the light burning in the room?

MR SIMELANE: It was dark.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So how did he see the man there, how did he know he was in the house?

MR SIMELANE: I am referring to the instance when we went into the house to attack him, it was dark then.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right. When did it become dark in the house? Did somebody switch off the light?

MR SIMELANE: I do not know when the lights were switched off.

MR NYAWUZA: So you're in essence saying when you attacked this Rambo, you attacked him in darkness, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Before we get into this house you are at Andrew Chauke's house, he tells you this, you arm yourselves, what did you specifically have as armoury?

MR SIMELANE: I had a stick.

MR NYAWUZA: And will I be correct if I say this house was facing next-door to the house that you were at?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: So you went across the street to this particular house where this Rambo was.

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: How many of you were there, were there the six of you or you had other comrades, since you alluded to this Committee that you were waiting for some comrades as well?

MR SIMELANE: When we went into the house there were four of us. There were six people altogether, but the two had other tasks, one was supposed to stand guard outside and the other went to get reinforcements, so the four of us went to the house.

MR NYAWUZA: Which two stood outside?

MR SIMELANE: Joseph was keeping guard outside, Clement went out to look for reinforcements.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did he go?

MR SIMELANE: He went to call other comrades.

MR NYAWUZA: So you walked into this dark house and in what position did you find the deceased, was he seated, was he asleep, was he sitting on a sofa or on a chair like the one that you're sitting on? Give us the scenario.

MR SIMELANE: He was seated on a chair. He had his back on the chair.

MR NYAWUZA: Since it was darkness I don't want to be unfair to you, but would you perhaps have seen as to whether he was asleep or not?

MR SIMELANE: When we went into the house, Andrew was in front therefore I could not tell whether he was asleep or not because as we got into the house, Andrew was in front and he attacked first.

MR NYAWUZA: So you're saying Andrew attacked and then the rest followed, the three of you? Since you said there were six of you and two kept guard but like Clement went to call for some reinforcement, so the four of you that went into the house, Andrew started to hit first and what did you in particular do, were you the second one to hit or the last one to hit and what did you do in particular?

MR SIMELANE: I was the second one, Alfred was behind me and we took turns in assaulting the deceased.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know this Rambo before, had you seen him?

MR SIMELANE: I had never seen him before.

MR NYAWUZA: So you were attacking someone you didn't know, how sure are you that you never killed the wrong Rambo?

MR SIMELANE: The attack was discussed prior to it taking place, that was after Andrew had been informed by the girl and the issue was discussed and it was confirmed that he was the correct target.

MR NYAWUZA: Had this girl not come to you and said Rambo is here, he's at her home, will I be correct if I say Rambo would still be alive today?

MR SIMELANE: I do not know about that because as was explained before, Rambo was notorious, so I cannot be certain whether he would still be alive today or not.

MR NYAWUZA: But if this girl hadn't come to you and told you that Rambo is in the house, he wouldn't have been killed on that particular day, am I correct in saying this was just an impromptu decision, that let's attack Rambo?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you aware of any tiff, you know, a problem between Rambo and his wife, the so-called Rambo and his wife?

MR SIMELANE: No, I did not know anything about that.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know Linkie before this incident?

MR SIMELANE: No, I did not.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

In relation to Clement, in your statement to the Investigating Officer and to another statement you made that I'd read out previously, you said that Clement hit the deceased with the axe, what is your comment today?

MR SIMELANE: After the incident, Andrew Chauke was arrested first and he then made a statement to the police. When I was arrested I was told by the police to sign that statement that Andrew had made, that statement alluding to the fact that Clement has assaulted the deceased first.

MS COLERIDGE: So that's why you stuck to the same story?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MS COLERIDGE: Tell me, do you know a Gilbert that also lives close to ...(intervention)

MR SIMELANE: No, I do not.

MS COLERIDGE: Because in the inquest where all of you had testified, as well as Linkie, she stated that she went to Gilbert to inform him that the deceased was a problem and that Andrew probably overheard it and he said that he would assist her. Do you know of anything like that, or any conversation regarding that?

MR SIMELANE: No, I do not known about that.

MS COLERIDGE: Tell us, did you see Linkie that night of the incident?

MR SIMELANE: No, ...(no English interpretation)

MS COLERIDGE: And the inquest, did you see her there as well? Did you see her there?

MR SIMELANE: I first saw her at the inquest.

MS COLERIDGE: And what did people tell you about Linkie at the inquest? What is your recollection of what Linkie had stated at the inquest?

MR SIMELANE: What I recall her being questioned on was how she knew Andrew.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you know Linkie before that?

MR SIMELANE: No, I did not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Have you ever spoken to her before the incident?

MR SIMELANE: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've never seen her before the incident?

MR SIMELANE: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The first time you saw her was at the inquest.

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was there a baby in the house that evening when you killed Rambo?

MR SIMELANE: No, when we went into the house to kill the deceased everything happened quickly, but I did not see a baby.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Any other person present?

MR SIMELANE: No, he was alone.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did you know, did you go into the other rooms to have a look whether other people were present?

MR SIMELANE: I am referring to the room that he was in, I do not about the other rooms because we did not investigate, we did not check.

MS COLERIDGE: You said that Clement, at the incident, Clement was actually sent out to go and look for other comrades in a sense, did he come back with more support?

MR SIMELANE: Clement left and by the time we finished the operation he had not returned.

MS COLERIDGE: What was your role in the incident, what exactly did you do? Can you just describe that to us. -at the house.

MR SIMELANE: I assaulted the deceased with a stick and I also dragged him from the house to the school, where he was burnt.

MS COLERIDGE: And did you have any stones as Mr Chauke had stated?

MR SIMELANE: No, I had a stick.

MS COLERIDGE: So Mr Chauke's evidence is incorrect, is that right?

MR SIMELANE: What are you referring to?

MR SIMELANE: No, it's not that material, but Mr Chauke said that you had stick and stone as well and that's how you assaulted the deceased.

MR SIMELANE: No, I only carried a stick, it was the others who had stones.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

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

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did somebody cut the fence?

MR SIMELANE: I think it was cut, but I do not recall who did.

JUDGE DE JAGER: With what did he do the cutting?

MR SIMELANE: I do not really recall whether when we went into the house it was already cut, or somebody came and cut the fence.

ADV SIGODI: When you entered this house were all the lights switched off or was it just a room where the deceased was sleeping, which had its lights off?

MR SIMELANE: The sitting-room is directly in front of the gate, so we just went straight into the sitting-room where the deceased was seated, therefore I did not notice whether other rooms had their lights on or not.

ADV SIGODI: Was this an ordinary four-roomed house in the township or was it a different house?

MR SIMELANE: It was a four-roomed house that had been extended in the front.

ADV SIGODI: But were you not in a position to see if there was any light coming, say from the kitchen or from the other rooms?

MR SIMELANE: The gate into the house is directly in front of the sitting-room and that is where we went and for you to be able to see into other rooms you would have to turn around the house.

ADV SIGODI: No, but surely if you are inside the sitting-room there are other doors leading from the other rooms into the sitting room. Were those doors closed or were they open?

MR SIMELANE: They were closed.

ADV SIGODI: So was it completely dark inside this room?

MR SIMELANE: It was not completely dark because there was an electric pole outside which shed some light.

ADV SIGODI: So you had light from the pole outside inside into the sitting-room, that is how you could see where the deceased was?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, it was not very dark, you could see where he was.

ADV SIGODI: But he could not be in a position to see who you were?

MR SIMELANE: His back was towards the door, so he could not have seen us.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, whoever switched off the lights may have done so with the purpose that whoever got inside would not be in a position to be identified.

MR SIMELANE: I do not know about that.

ADV SIGODI: How long did it take you to plan before going inside to kill the deceased? I mean, what was the time difference from the time that Linkie left you and the time that you went into the house, how long did it take you to plan the murder of the deceased?

MR SIMELANE: I would say this happened in the space of one hour.

ADV SIGODI: So after Linkie had told you that, or had told the first applicant that here's a policeman in the house and it's Rambo, it took you a whole hour. Now what was the conversation between the six of you within that hour? What were you discussing?

MR SIMELANE: We got delayed because we did not have weapons, we only had the petrol bombs at our disposal, that is what consumed a lot of time. We also had to discuss the roles that would be played by different individuals in the group.

ADV SIGODI: So this was a well-planned operation?

MR SIMELANE: I would say so.

ADV SIGODI: Where did you get the weapons from?

MR SIMELANE: We all went out to look for whatever weapons we could find.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you go to to look?

MR SIMELANE: I went to my home and collected that stick and the others went to various different places.

ADV SIGODI: How far is your home from Mr Chauke's home? How long did it take you to get there?

MR SIMELANE: About five minutes.

ADV SIGODI: Right. So you went to your home and all you fetched was a stick?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

ADV SIGODI: At all times your intention was to kill the deceased, the only weapon that you went to fetch was a stick.

MR SIMELANE: Our intention was to kill the deceased, that is why we all went out in different directions to look for whatever weapons we could find.

ADV SIGODI: Why couldn't you get a more lethal weapon?

MR SIMELANE: That was the weapon I felt was suitable because it was not easy to use, to take weapons such as an axe from my home because they would have enquired as to what I was going to do with those.

ADV SIGODI: Alright. Now you have assaulted the deceased and you've dragged him out, were there people outside in the township who heard maybe the noise that somebody was being attacked?

MR SIMELANE: We did not see anyone.

ADV SIGODI: So there was no-one outside in the streets?

MR SIMELANE: We did not see anyone in the street.

ADV SIGODI: Now tell me, why was it necessary to burn the deceased?

MR SIMELANE: We were of the opinion that if we burn him it would send a clear message to everybody else including the community, that we were serious about what we were doing.

ADV SIGODI: So in other words, it would have sent a message that this was a political killing and not an ordinary killing, is that what you're saying?

MR SIMELANE: Ja, I could put it that way.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you've made various statements, do you remember that?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you look at page 52 of the bundle please. Have you got that in front of you?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in the sixth paragraph you say -

Do you see that passage?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who is Appie?

MR SIMELANE: Ruben Mabuza.

CHAIRPERSON: Appie is who?

MR SIMELANE: Ruben Mabuza or Robbie Bongani Mabuza.

CHAIRPERSON: And you go on to say -

See that?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Now which house was it that you were talking about there?

MR SIMELANE: The house in which the deceased was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: And you then say -

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was this other girl?

MR SIMELANE: As I mentioned before, the police came to me with statements that we already made and told me to sign them.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying this was a police invention?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you throw away the carpet, or the door mat?

MR SIMELANE: I did not see a mat.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you went back to the same house?

MR SIMELANE: After we'd burnt him we fled.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, maybe I understood you wrongly. I thought in answer to the question of the Chairperson, you told us that you went back to the same house and he asked you -

and you said the house where the murder took place. Am I wrong?

MR SIMELANE: The Judge was reading a statement that was allegedly made by me. As I've just explained, these were prepared by the police and I was told to sign it.

CHAIRPERSON: But I asked you -

and you said -

MR SIMELANE: I was confirming the statements that the Judge was reading, not to say that I agree with the content of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I asked you what it meant and you explained what "dieselfde huis" was, now you're trying to change that, are you? Now you're saying you don't know, it's not what you meant to say.

MR SIMELANE: I am not trying to change because I mentioned that when we completed burning the deceased, we fled, we did not go back to any house. And I do not know anything about the mats.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence and the case for this applicant. We would then beg leave to call the next applicant who is Robbie Bongani Mabuza.

MR KOOPEDI: The applicant is ready to be sworn in and he will be giving evidence in Zulu.

ROBBIE BONGANI MABUZA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mabuza, I am showing to you page 29 of the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee and on page 29 there's an application form, is this your application form?

MR MABUZA: Yes, that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: And on page 36 of - in fact, page 35 of the same bundle of documents which I'm showing to you, there's a signature that appears at the bottom there, is that your signature?

MR MABUZA: Yes, that's my signature.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is it correct that you have prepared a statement which would assist you in giving evidence in this matter?

MR MABUZA: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you please proceed and - yes, we will proceed and mark it Exhibit C. Would you please proceed and read this statement to the Honourable Committee.

MR MABUZA:

MR KOOPEDI: Now regard being had to what you've just told this Honourable Committee and what you co-applicant and your then Commander, Mr Chauke, has told this Honourable Committee, do you think that you have told this Honourable Committee everything that you remember about this matter?

MR MABUZA: Yes, I have divulged everything.

MR KOOPEDI: Now did you benefit anything financially or personally for having taken part in this operation?

MR MABUZA: The only benefit was that we sent a message to the then government, that was our benefit, nothing else.

MR KOOPEDI: Now in your mind was this action politically motivated and would it then have a political objective?

MR MABUZA: Very much so, it was politically motivated because the police and the councillors - the police and the councillors had to be isolated.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief for this applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson and Honourable Committee Members.

Mr Mabuza, on the day in your question your initial operation was to attack a police officer's house, is that correct?

MR MABUZA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And in the planning of when you did these petrol bombs and everything, is it correct that you didn't have arms at that time?

MR MABUZA: Yes, we didn't have weaponry except for the petrol bombs.

MR NYAWUZA: And still you were going to attack a police officer's house, is that so?

MR MABUZA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And then here comes this Linkie, she says here's this Rambo and tactics change, you now opt to arm yourselves with sticks and the other items that were used in hitting on the head, why?

MR MABUZA: Because the intention was to attack the police's house, we didn't have weaponry except for the petrol bombs.

MR NYAWUZA: What in essence were you going to do in the attack of this other police officer's house? Were you going to throw the petrol bomb and then flee or you were going to throw the petrol bomb, wait for him to come out and kill him?

MR MABUZA: We would hurl the petrol bombs.

MR NYAWUZA: And then run away?

MR MABUZA: Yes, then run away.

MR NYAWUZA: So you had your operation altered, what did you have, what is it that you had as weaponry?

MR MABUZA: I would say because we didn't have weaponry, Andrew suggested to us that we should try and secure ourselves weapons. I had a stick and stones.

MR NYAWUZA: So you walk into this house, here's the person that you've been told is in the house, in what position was he, was he seated or was he lying?

MR MABUZA: He was sitting.

MR NYAWUZA: In what position - was he seated like myself - look at me, Mr Mabuza, was he seated like myself or was he lying like this?

CHAIRPERSON: The questioner lowered his head till it was resting on the table in front of him.

MR NYAWUZA: Can the Chairperson please come again, I didn't pick that up.

CHAIRPERSON: I said the questioner lowered his head till it was resting on the table in front of him, when he described it merely as "Was he sitting like this?"

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, thank you.

Did he have his head lowered to the table or was he rested(sic)?

MR MABUZA: I would not say how he was sitting because when we walked into the house we filed one after another, so that on entering everything happened so quick.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Mabuza, I wish to refer you to page 31 of the bundle in your amnesty application, I think it's line 9(a).4 on page 31, where you state that -

Did you also make this statement under duress?

MR MABUZA: No.

MR NYAWUZA: No what, Mr Mabuza?

MR MABUZA: No, I was not under duress on making this statement.

MR NYAWUZA: So which is the correct statement, was he seated or was his face lying down? Which one do we have to believe today?

MR MABUZA: Yes, he was sitting at the table.

MR NYAWUZA: Was his face lying on the table or not?

MR MABUZA: On entering the house we cannot say whether he was sitting in that position because he had been beaten by the person who was in front of us or not, I just cannot say.

MR NYAWUZA: According to the testimony of Reginald Simelane, Reginald was second in the line as you entered the house, can you kindly tell us where you were at, were you number four or were you number three?

MR MABUZA: I was the last one.

MR NYAWUZA: So when you entered the house, am I correct in saying he had already been assaulted? Correct me if I'm wrong.

MR MABUZA: I wouldn't say whether it's correct or not.

MR NYAWUZA: But in your application you stated that he was lying with his face down. Why did you mention that, why didn't you clearly say "when I came in he had been attacked already"?

MR MABUZA: Yes, he had his head bowed.

MR NYAWUZA: So now you agree that he had his face lying down?

MR MABUZA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: What role did you play in the killing of the deceased?

MR MABUZA: I assaulted him with a stick and stones, after which I assisted the others to drag him to the school. At the school, Alfred poured petrol over him and I set him alight.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you - you were students at the time, is that correct?

MR MABUZA: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you well-known activists in the area?

MR MABUZA: At school yes, I was very active.

MR NYAWUZA: Having doused the deceased with petrol and setting him alight, why did you run away?

MR MABUZA: We had concluded our operation.

MR NYAWUZA: Why did you burn him?

MR MABUZA: As I am saying, there was a call to isolate the police and soldiers, that is why I set him alight.

MR NYAWUZA: Can you put in the know-how as regard isolation, tell me what isolation meant in struggle terms.

MR MABUZA: Isolation meant that the police and soldiers were persona non grata, they interfered in many things that we wanted to do as students. That is the reason why the police, soldiers and councillors had their houses burnt.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did that include killing them? Should you burn their houses or should you kill them? What was the instruction?

MR MABUZA: Yes, burning them as well as their houses, their children and everything.

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Mabuza, I seem to be having a problem here because we're having a situation on this particular day where a police officer is going to be attacked way before the thought of killing the deceased comes to mind, you are attacking people of the same stature, both are police officers, but on the one hand the one that you are attacking you don't have kieries and the other items that were used there and when you attacked this particular person you have to arm yourselves, you know you just decide on the spur of the moment that "guy's, no, no, let's arm ourselves, let's go and get kieries and all", but you are attacking people who are working for the same organisation. Why? If you can just tell me why we used arms in this particular case and in this other case we wanted to use petrol bombs? Just clarify me on that, why?

MR MABUZA: With regards to the other policeman, we were only going to burn his house down, just to send a message that his activities are not welcome.

MR NYAWUZA: And then this other one?

MR MABUZA: With regards to Benjamin, he was in the neighbourhood and he was also a target. At that time he was an important legitimate target and that is how it came about that we changed operations.

MR NYAWUZA: Weren't both these police officers targets? In simpler terms, weren't they both targets?

MR MABUZA: Yes, they were.

MR NYAWUZA: So you agree with me that both were targets?

MR MABUZA: Yes, they were.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I just want to ask the applicant a few questions.

How long were you a member of the underground unit?

MR MABUZA: Two years.

MS COLERIDGE: And were you and Mr Chauke and everyone else, at Saulsridge High School? Were you also at that high school?

MR MABUZA: Yes, we were all attending school there.

MS COLERIDGE: And at the time of this incident did you regard Mr Chauke as your Commander?

MR MABUZA: Yes, he was the Commander.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you have a discretion in this instance, in this matter, did you have a discretion to say "no, I couldn't proceed with this matter", or were you under the orders and command of Mr Chauke?

MR MABUZA: I participated voluntarily.

MS COLERIDGE: So do you say that you could actually say "look, I don't want to carry on with this mission anymore"? Was that discretion up to you in the end?

MR MABUZA: Yes, I did.

MS COLERIDGE: So why didn't you inform the people that were with you in this mission, why didn't you say "look, I don't want to proceed with this incident anymore, I don't want to kill somebody, I don't want to eliminate them"? Why did you continue with this operation?

MR MABUZA: I was in Mr Chauke's unit and I was part of the unit and I participate in all the acts that were carried out by the unit.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

MR KOOPEDI: No re-exam, Chairperson, thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you have a look at page 33, paragraph 11(b), you've been asked to state particulars of the orders or approval and then you gave an answer about your motive for killing, what really inspired you to participate in this killing?

MR MABUZA: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What really inspired you to participate in this killing? Was there any order or speech given by somebody who inspired you to kill policemen?

MR MABUZA: With regards to what I wrote here, there was a call made by Mrs Mandela to the effect that police and soldiers and other State apparatus should be isolated.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You told us that you agree with the affidavit of Mr Chauke, and he stated -

So you wanted the people to come and witness this killing and burning of Rambo, is that correct?

MR MABUZA: That's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why didn't you wait until all the people are there, assembled there, so that they could witness the killing of this notorious policeman?

MR MABUZA: We had to operate quickly because we did not know how long we were going to wait for him to return and we didn't even know if he was going to be able to get those people he was looking for.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And on another aspect, when you arrived at this house, was the door standing open or was it closed, but unlocked? What was the position as far as the front door, the sitting-room's door was concerned?

MR MABUZA: As I mentioned before I was the last one in line, so when I entered the door was already opened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, that would have been so, you entering, but you should have seen. Approaching the house, was the door open or was it closed and Chauke turned the handle and walked in or what was the position?

MR MABUZA: I would say Mr Chauke opened the door.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And there was nobody else in the house?

MR MABUZA: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Not even a baby?

MR MABUZA: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you go back to the house after you've killed him?

MR MABUZA: No, we did not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You threw stones at him, is that correct?

MR MABUZA: Yes, I did.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So the stones were lying there in the sitting-room.

MR MABUZA: ...(no English interpretation)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I couldn't hear the answer.

MR MABUZA: Yes, they were left there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The stones were left there in the sitting-room?

MR MABUZA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So everybody could see that the killing actually took place in the sitting-room? There must have been blood there, is that correct?

MR MABUZA: Yes, there was blood there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you didn't try to remove the blood spots or the stones which had blood on them?

MR MABUZA: No, we only removed the deceased.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure that there was no-one else in the house?

MR MABUZA: I am not certain because I did not go into other rooms.

CHAIRPERSON: See we have a statement from somebody who says he was sitting in the kitchen at the time and saw what happened.

MR MABUZA: Did he see me? I do not understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just seeking to confirm that there was no-one else there, because we have been given a statement from a man who says he was sitting in the kitchen at the time.

MR MABUZA: I do not know about that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And this man actually says that Andrew spoke to him.

MR MABUZA: I do not know about it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And asked him for a pliers. - after the killing.

MR MABUZA: I do not know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: He's an old man of 75 years old, Solly Lekubu.

MR MABUZA: I do not know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be the case for this applicant. We beg leave to call in the last applicant in the matter, Mr Simelane again.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Mr Chauke would like to leave the table to answer a nature's call. Would it be appropriate for him to do so? He has given his evidence and I believe he does not need to be recalled. Just so as to make sure that we do not stall these hearings unnecessarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: The next statement will be Exhibit D. I presume you're amending the spelling.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, we need to amend that and it be Alfred, Chairperson. Mr Alfred Simelane will testify in Zulu. He's ready to take the oath.

ALFRED SIMELANE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Simelane, I'm referring you to page 21 of the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee, there is an application form on that page, is that your application form?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now at the back of this application that is on page 27, there is a signature that appears there, is that your signature?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, it is.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you have a document before you which this Honourable Committee has titled Exhibit D, is it correct that this is a statement which you prepared to assist you in giving your evidence-in-chief in this matter?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you please read this statement to the Honourable Committee.

MR SIMELANE:

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Simelane, regarding had to the statement you have just made and the testimony given by your then Commander and now co-applicant, Mr Andrew Chauke, as far as you can recall, would you say that you have told this Honourable Committee all that you remember about this day?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Mr Simelane, did you benefit anything financially or personally for having participated in this deed?

MR SIMELANE: No, I did not receive any financial benefit, nor any other benefit.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you think there was a political objective? Was there a political motive which would then have a political objective?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, there was a political objective.

MR KOOPEDI: What would you say were those political reasons?

MR SIMELANE: The first reason is that he was a member of the old regime, he was a police officer, and he was a notorious person and thus the name Rambo. He used to harass people in the community, that is why I say it was politically motivated.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be the evidence-in-chief for this applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Simelane, this Rambo name, was it known in the Saulsville area or was it only known to underground units, because the family says there's no name like this that this guy was known about.

MR SIMELANE: It was a name known amongst the comrades in the township.

MR NYAWUZA: So the other communities who, for want of a better phrase, were not politically knowledgeable, didn't know this Rambo name, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: I cannot say.

MR NYAWUZA: Taking the matter further, is the other Simelane who gave testimony here, your brother?

MR SIMELANE: No.

MR NYAWUZA: What is your relationship? Were you only comrades or is he your cousin? What's the relationship?

MR SIMELANE: I knew him from school.

MR NYAWUZA: How far were you resident from Mr Chauke's place of residence?

MR SIMELANE: I would say the distance from here to Marabastad.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be about two/three kilometres?

MR NYAWUZA: I'm not good at estimating distance but it's a bit far.

MR KOOPEDI: If I could assist, Chairperson, it is correct that Marabastad could be about three kilometres from where we're sitting.

MR NYAWUZA: And as regards the house that you had a meeting at, how many times had you held meetings at this house?

MR SIMELANE: It was the first occasion on which we held a meeting there. I remember this because we normally held our meetings at school and because of that fact we decided to change the venue.

MR NYAWUZA: Why did you decide to change?

MR SIMELANE: We changed the venue because the Security Police were monitoring the school and at that time we decided to rotate the venues amongst the different members.

MR NYAWUZA: Testimony has been given that the initial operation was to attack some other police officers residences, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

MR NYAWUZA: You knew where this police officer was resident, is that so? You in particular.

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I did know.

MR NYAWUZA: And you stated before this hearing that you were staying about three kilometres from where Andrew was staying. In relation to where you were staying and in relation to where Andrew was staying, who of you was nearer this other police officer's residence?

MR SIMELANE: I would say it was Andrew and Reginald, because Siso is not too far from Serote.

MR NYAWUZA: On this particular day, Mr Simelane, did you see this Linkie who has been referred to in these hearings?

MR SIMELANE: I did not see her.

MR NYAWUZA: An no stage, even when you attacked this house and after you had attacked this house on this day?

MR SIMELANE: No, I only saw her in Court.

MR NYAWUZA: And testimony has been given that Clement and I think it's Mr Motsepe, stood guard, or Clement went to call somebody else and Motsepe stood guard. Now when you entered into this house, I would assume that you also entered this house, what were you armed with?

MR SIMELANE: I had stones, I did not have any other weapon.

MR NYAWUZA: And besides stones, what else did you have?

MR SIMELANE: Nothing.

MR NYAWUZA: So you had - there's this Linkie, she comes into - she interrupts this meeting, all-of-a-sudden the whole thing changes, Mr X has now got to be a target, and testimony before this hearing was that you were advised to get weaponry, why didn't you go and look for weaponry besides stones?

MR SIMELANE: I resided the furthest away from Andrew's home, so that I did not go very far when these others went out to look for weapons.

MR NYAWUZA: So are you saying you remained with Andrew, because it was Andrew's residence? Or did he also go out to look for something too?

MR SIMELANE: I did go out, but I only returned with stones and that is what I decided to use.

MR NYAWUZA: When you got in the house, you saw - did you see - if I were to rephrase my question, did you see in what question the deceased was sitting?

MR SIMELANE: I was the third person in line, Andrew was in front, when I got inside he had already fallen. And with regards to the position he was in before, I only learnt of that later.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you know this Rambo before, did you know about his notoriety?

MR SIMELANE: At that time I had not been in the township for very long, I would hear about this Rambo who was alleged to punish comrades, torture them. Personally I did not know him but I had heard of him and I only learnt that it was Mr Masinga after his death.

MR NYAWUZA: Was it perhaps known ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That last answer I couldn't follow. You only learnt that it was Mr Masinga after his death or what? What did you say, I couldn't catch it.

MR SIMELANE: What I'm trying to explain is that I did not know him as Mr Ben Masinga, I just knew of him as Rambo.

MR NYAWUZA: So you attacked him in the house and you hit him with stones whilst he was still in the house, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And all-in-all, himself included, there were five of you in this room, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: And all four of you were attacking him, is that so?

MR SIMELANE: That's correct.

MR NYAWUZA: Put us in the know-how regarding his handling of weaponry, were you not afraid that he was going to shoot you, because he was known for his notoriety? Was he notorious for shooting people or was he notorious for torturing people?

MR SIMELANE: He was notorious for torturing people.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you perhaps know of an incident where maybe he was involved in some shooting of a comrade or anything?

MR SIMELANE: I cannot say that specifically, but comrades were killed by the police daily, but I cannot say whether he in particular murdered anyone.

MR NYAWUZA: And on this particular day as you were armed with stones, there's somebody armed with a stick and there's one armed with a stick again and Andrew was armed with an axe, and you are attacking somebody who is a police officer, police officers who are known to carry firearms wherever they are, it's 1986, there's turmoil in the country, people are against police officers, but the four of you armed with what you had, had the guts to attack a very notorious police officer, were you perhaps not advised on this particular day that this guy is lying on the table, he's drunk?

MR SIMELANE: What motivated us to attack him was that we planned the operation well and we had planned on surprising him because from the information we received, he was alone in the sitting-room, therefore we would easily ambush him.

MR NYAWUZA: Were you not at all advised that he's sleeping on the table and he is inebriated?

MR SIMELANE: I do not recall such information.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-exam, thanks Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't know Rambo, you haven't seen him alive ever in your life?

MR SIMELANE: No, I had not seen him before but I hated the police.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you're entering a dark room, how did you know you're killing Rambo and you're not killing Piet?

MR SIMELANE: The information we received was that he was in the dining-room, and with regards to darkness, it was not so dark that you could not see because there was an electric pole outside which passed some light.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay I accept that you could see, but now you see a person there, you don't know whether it's Rambo or whether it's Piet Masinga, or whether it's Piet Ntuli, because you've never seen him before.

MR SIMELANE: The information we received was that he was in the dining-room alone, therefore any person we encountered in the dining-room would be him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And that was more than an hour before you went there.

MR SIMELANE: I would not dispute that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Anybody could have entered there and sat there.

MR SIMELANE: Yes, but that was the person we found in the house.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It could have been a woman sitting there.

MR SIMELANE: We would not have attacked a woman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How would you see in the dark whether it's a woman or a man?

MR SIMELANE: Even though I was young at the time, I could tell the difference between a man and a woman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, if you could see I suppose.

MR SIMELANE: As I mentioned before, it was not so dark that you could not see, it's just that the light inside the room was off.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And there was a person sitting at the table, not straight up but head down, and you could see whether it was a man or a woman.

MR SIMELANE: I do not wish to commit myself as regards to the position he was in, but as I entered the room I saw a man on the - lying down.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Lying down on the table or lying down on the floor?

MR SIMELANE: On the floor.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he was lying on the floor?

MR SIMELANE: When I first assaulted him with a stone he was already on the ground.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but when you first saw him, was he on the ground or what?

MR SIMELANE: When I first saw him he was in the process of falling, he had been sitting but I cannot tell whether he had been sitting with his head lying on the table or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you said you had information that it was Rambo, could you give us that information? Exactly what did you know before going there?

MR SIMELANE: I do not understand the question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How did you know it was Rambo sitting in that room?

MR SIMELANE: That was because of the information we received.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who gave you that information?

MR SIMELANE: It was given to us by the Commander after he had met with someone. We were in a meeting and somebody came looking for him, he went out, returned and gave us that information and we had no reason to doubt it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now we have heard here that the family would say this man was never known as Rambo. - if I understood the question correctly.

MR SIMELANE: I do not know how to explain it but I myself have a nickname which is not known at home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But how do you know, even today, that this policeman who was killed there was in fact Rambo, the notorious one? Wasn't that a different policeman? Because you've never seen him.

MR SIMELANE: I was the last person to be arrested and it was also published in the media as to who had been killed. The police also informed me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did the police inform you of, what did they say who was killed?

MR SIMELANE: They said it was Benjamin Masinga.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, they told you Benjamin, and there's no dispute it was Benjamin Masinga, but how do you know it's Rambo?

MR SIMELANE: That was his nickname because of his conduct amongst comrades. I do not know whether other people recognised that nickname or not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But would it have made a difference whether it was Rambo or not Rambo, as long as it was a policeman wouldn't you consider him to be your enemy? And you would kill any policeman.

MR SIMELANE: It would not have made a difference to me. I was satisfied that it was a police officer, not necessarily that it's Rambo or anybody else because the police used to harass us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He didn't wear a uniform at that stage?

MR SIMELANE: No, he was not in uniform at the time. At the time they were afraid of being seen in uniform in the township.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right, thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Who recruited you to the cell, to this underground unit?

MR SIMELANE: Joseph Motsepe recruited me into the unit.

ADV SIGODI: Were you present at any of the trainings which were given by the MK cadres who came in?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, I was present.

ADV SIGODI: Were you also trained on how to identify targets and what methods you used to identify targets to attack?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: What did the training entail, what were you informed on the identification of targets? What were you told?

MR SIMELANE: We identified them by their uniforms as well as information gathered from our comrades. At the time comrades would not have passed wrong information.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but that would be information that you received from the other comrades, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: In other words you would rely on information that you received from other cadres, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: We used to receive information from the cadres, yes, most of the time they used to give us political education, give us pamphlets and tell us about meetings and we also used to receive information from ordinary comrades from the township.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, maybe you're not understanding me. When you were trained, as part of your training as an MK soldier, most probably trained by MK cadres coming from outside into the country, training this particular cell and then going and leaving the country, you would be given training on how you identify targets that you would attack inside the country, is that not so?

MR SIMELANE: Yes, that's one other training we received.

ADV SIGODI: Yes. What I want to find out is, what did those MKs tell you what to do in order to be able to identify a target, besides the obvious one that when you see a person wearing a police uniform, what other methods were you told or taught to use to identify a target?

MR SIMELANE: There were numerous ways, some of which included photographs.

ADV SIGODI: Were you told about reconnaissance?

MR SIMELANE: I only learnt about reconnaissance in exile, not in the country.

ADV SIGODI: Oh so you also went into exile?

MR SIMELANE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: What concerns me is the fact that in identifying this particular target, as a trained MK operative in a cell you relied on information which was given to you about someone whom you did not know and this information was given to you by somebody who was not a member of your cell, who was not a trained MK cadre but just an ordinary person, and you relied on that information.

MR SIMELANE: We used to assess the information, that is the reason that on that one particular day we did not just go out, you see we had petrol bombs and on receiving the information we gathered and even though we had planned to go and attack another target, this one target is more important. Honestly, he did escape from comrade attacks before, that is the reason why we decided to drop the other operation.

ADV SIGODI: But what measures did you take to make sure that the person that you killed was actually a legitimate target? What measures did you take to make sure that the information that you had about this person was actually correct, accurate and in fact the person you are killing is a legitimate target?

MR SIMELANE: We were at a meeting you see and the information was brought by our Commander, he's a person whom we trusted and we did other things together with him, things such as distributing pamphlets etcetera, and he's the one who gave us direction and we would not have undermined his judgement.

ADV SIGODI: Did he not say to you that he got the information from Linkie?

MR SIMELANE: No, he did not tell us where he got the information from, except that he indicated that he received the information from a comrade.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: If there are no questions from the Chair, Chair, that will be the evidence of this applicant and in fact that is our application, Chairperson, we have no other witness to call.

MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The family will be represented by Mr Charles Masinga, the younger brother to the deceased. Could he be sworn in?

ADV SIGODI: What language would you prefer to speak?

MR MASINGA: English.

ADV SIGODI: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

CHARLES MASINGA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Masinga, where was your brother resident in 1986?

MR MASINGA: He was staying at number 2, Fenyana Street at Saulsville.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long had he been resident there?

MR MASINGA: For 20 years if I can say.

MR NYAWUZA: And in relation to the address at which he was attacked, what do you know about that house?

MR MASINGA: Okay, that is where his wife was staying.

MR NYAWUZA: At the time of the arrest, for how long had he been married to this woman?

MR MASINGA: About two years.

MR NYAWUZA: And during the subsistence of this marriage, were they at any stage staying together? And if the answer to that is yes, where were they staying?

MR MASINGA: At one stage they were staying together, but at the time this murder happened, they were separated.

MR NYAWUZA: And during the period in which they were staying together, where were they resident, where were they staying?

MR MASINGA: The wife was staying at 40 Serote Street.

MR NYAWUZA: And your brother?

MR MASINGA: My brother was staying at 2 Fenyana at Saulsville.

MR NYAWUZA: So you're in essence saying they had been living apart from each other, even during the subsistence of their marriage, or what?

MR MASINGA: Okay, at one stage they were staying together but there was a quarrel and then they separated.

MR NYAWUZA: I would want you to tell the Committee where they resided, did they reside at his in-laws or did they reside at your brother's place or where did they reside?

MR MASINGA: They resided at his in-laws.

MR NYAWUZA: At his in-laws?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Which happens to be the house at which he was attacked?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: For how long were they resident there, in terms of months or a year, just an estimate.

MR MASINGA: A year.

MR NYAWUZA: About a year?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And you've alluded to this Committee that at some stage he had quarrels with his wife and they separated.

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Then during my consultation with yourself this morning you advised me that you had been with the deceased on the day in question, quickly take the Committee through what happened on that particular day.

MR MASINGA: Okay. We were together since in the morning until at about 6 o'clock when he left saying that he's going to see my uncle, but he told me that he wants to get some items that were still at his in-laws' house. He left at about six and then I didn't see him again that night until the next morning when we were told that he's been attacked.

MR NYAWUZA: There has been talk of him having been known as Rambo, what do you know about that?

MR MASINGA: It's the first time I'm hearing that name today, I never heard such a name given to my brother.

MR NYAWUZA: Your brother as a police officer, what was his relationship with your community, in general?

MR MASINGA: I can say he was a socialite, he used to mix with people and I was - in fact, all of us we were surprised when they say he was notorious, he was killing people. He was not like that.

MR NYAWUZA: No, there hasn't been testimony of him killing people, the testimony is that he tortured people.

MR MASINGA: Okay.

MR NYAWUZA: And was he - he didn't live with his in-laws after a year having stayed there, where was he staying? Was he still staying at Saulsville?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Was your brother a church-goer, did he attend church?

MR MASINGA: Ja, he was a member of a youth club.

MR NYAWUZA: How old was he at the time?

MR MASINGA: I can't remember well, but he was at his early 30s.

MR NYAWUZA: And as a member of the youth club, would you agree with me when I say he integrated well with the congregation, is that so?

MR MASINGA: Yes, he even played the piano in the church.

MR NYAWUZA: So the address at which your brother was attacked and the address at which he was staying at that time, what is the distance, how far are they from each other?

MR MASINGA: It's about four kilometres.

MR NYAWUZA: So he - will you in essence say he was well-known in the area at which he was residing during the time of his death than at the other area?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Did he have any problems with the community at which he was resident at the time of his death?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR NYAWUZA: And having stayed in Saulsville, was his house at any stage attacked by comrades?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR NYAWUZA: You're well aware that we've got four applicants here who have implicated two other guys who have not applied for amnesty, if these guys were to - they're seeking amnesty, they're saying "we did kill Benjamin Masinga", what's your attitude towards that, towards the application? What would you say to this Committee?

MR MASINGA: What I can say is that we haven't heard the real truth ...(intervention)

MR NYAWUZA: In your perception ...

MR MASINGA: ... in my personal opinion.

MR NYAWUZA: ... what would the truth be?

MR MASINGA: The incident was not politically motivated, they took advantage of the situation at that point in time.

MR NYAWUZA: And what was the situation?

MR MASINGA: The situation was like you know, the policemen were regarded as outcasts inn the society.

MR NYAWUZA: So you confirm that at that stage policemen were regarded as outcasts?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And then just tell us why you say they took advantage of the situation, what makes you say so? What situation was that?

MR MASINGA: Okay, after his death - his wife is working with some friends of mine, he was telling the people that he has hit the jackpot.

MR NYAWUZA: He or she?

MR MASINGA: She has hit the jackpot.

MR NYAWUZA: And in layman's language what did that mean?

MR MASINGA: It meant that she's going to get all the pension monies.

MR NYAWUZA: Has she received them as yet?

MR MASINGA: I'm not quite sure on that one.

MR NYAWUZA: So what are you in actual fact saying, are you saying you believe somebody cuckoo was happening here?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: And what can that be?

MR MASINGA: They might have been recruited by the wife to commit this murder.

MR NYAWUZA: Do you know this Linkie who has been referred to in this hearing today?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: How do you know her?

MR MASINGA: I used to visit them and I used to meet her there.

MR NYAWUZA: Was she a cousin to your brother's wife or was she a sister to your brother's wife?

MR MASINGA: She was a cousin to my brother's wife.

MR NYAWUZA: Did you hear her testimony that she's the one who advised the applicants to come and attack the deceased?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Tell me, at some stage you advised when I was consulting with you that there was also a police officer who was married to one of the sisters at this house, what's his name?

MR MASINGA: Mr Mashishi.

MR NYAWUZA: Where was this Mr Mashishi resident, was he staying at the house or he was staying somewhere else?

MR MASINGA: He was staying in that particular house.

MR NYAWUZA: Even at the time of this attack?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Your brother and your sister-in-law had an argument, your brother moves out of this house where he's resident, would you say you still attended, you know you still paid your brother's in-laws visitations, even during his absence at this house?

MR MASINGA: No, what actually happened, she didn't even come to the funeral of her husband. I don't know even today whether she knows my brother's grave or not, she wasn't there at all.

MR NYAWUZA: My question, what I actually want to find out from you was, how sure were you that this Mr Mashishi was staying in that house? That was what I was trying to get from you.

MR MASINGA: He was stationed at Atteridgeville Police Station, so it was nearer for him to stay in that house than going to Soshanguve.

MR NYAWUZA: Are you assuming that that could have been the case or are you saying yes, he did stay at that place for convenience sake?

MR MASINGA: He did stay there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you at any stage find him there at that house?

MR MASINGA: Did you ...?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you at any stage find him there at that house where your brother was also staying?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you hear or do you know whether he was there on the night of the killing?

MR MASINGA: They just told me that he was there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You never asked him whether he's witnessed this killing?

MR MASINGA: No, I didn't because after this killing there was some separation, we didn't communicate well with that family.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know where Linkie is today?

MR MASINGA: I don't know the exact address but she's in Soshanguve.

MR NYAWUZA: So Mr Masinga, would you and your family pardon, you know forgive the applicants if they said "we killed him for a particular motive which was a political objective"? Would you and your family forgive them if they say so?

MR MASINGA: I don't want to take a unilateral decision, but I've consulted with the family members and they don't agree to.

MR NYAWUZA: So you believe they're not telling the truth?

MR MASINGA: The truth yes.

MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

I just need to be clarified on a few things, if you could bear with me Mr Masinga. I need to understand how long was it, that is the time from when he had left his in-laws and returned home, until he was killed? What type of a period had passed?

MR MASINGA: It was roughly after he left my in-laws' house.

MR KOOOPEDI: During this three months, did you have any occasion to go to this house at Serote Street?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: So it would be incorrect for you to say that this other policeman, Mr Mashishi, stayed at this house because you never went to this house, particularly at that time?

MR MASINGA: I've got a friend who is staying next to this house, so I normally visit my friend every week, so I used to see him.

MR KOOOPEDI: So you saw him there?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR KOOOPEDI: Do you know whether he was visiting or he was staying in this house?

MR MASINGA: Well I'm not quite sure on that one, but I normally used to see him over the week-ends at that house.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. But perhaps I could explain that it is strange that there would have been a policeman staying in this house and on all the documents and the inquests there hasn't been any mention of a policeman who was present. Would you perhaps know why?

MR MASINGA: I don't know that one.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. Another thing is, at that time, were you a member of the police?

MR MASINGA: Myself?

MR KOOOPEDI: Yes.

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: Were you in any way associated with the police?

MR MASINGA: No.

MR KOOOPEDI: Would you then know what your brother did when he went on duty, police duties? Would you know what he did?

MR MASINGA: Not really.

MR KOOOPEDI: Okay. Now, do you know of an incident where he was attacked and disarmed by some people?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR KOOOPEDI: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.

MR NYAWUZA: As regards the last question ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: As regards the last question to Mr Masinga.

Mr Masinga, where was your brother disarmed, was it in the area at which he was killed or was it in your area, the area where he was resident.

MR MASINGA: It's not nearer to the same area where he was killed nor nearer to where he was residing, it was some way away.

MR NYAWUZA: Where away was it? Was it in Saulsville?

MR MASINGA: In Atteridgeville.

MR NYAWUZA: It was in Atteridgeville?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

MR NYAWUZA: Okay. Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Did your brother have any children with his wife?

MR MASINGA: No.

ADV SIGODI: That's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just on this last aspect. Did he have any children with another wife? So he's got children but not with this wife he's been estranged to?

MR MASINGA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would you be able to give the names and the address of the children to the Leader of Evidence here?

MR MASINGA: Okay, he had only one son whom he passed away in November.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he's got no other children?

MR MASINGA: Ja, so far nothing.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, do you know if this Mr Mashishi, the other policeman, if he's still alive?

MR MASINGA: I don't know whether he's still alive or not.

ADV SIGODI: You haven't had any contact with him?

MR MASINGA: No.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Linkie, you said she's staying in Soshanguve, would you be able to point out where she is staying?

MR MASINGA: I don't know the exact address.

MR NYAWUZA: That's the evidence for the family members, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any evidence to be led?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well does that now conclude all the evidence for this hearing?

MS COLERIDGE: It does indeed, Chairperson, we're just left with argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to start argument now?

MR KOOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A brief submission, Chairperson.

I would perhaps first start with an issue that comes out of a statement on page 52, where Reginald Simelane was questioned.

Chairperson, my respectful submission is that the question asked to Mr Simelane was "which house is "dieselfde huis", as it is mentioned on page 52, the sixth paragraph. He said that the same house means the house where the deceased was killed. My understanding, Chairperson, and I believe the record will show that, at no stage was his answer that they had gone back to this house. I am saying this in mind of the statement that we have, which is the statement which was given to TRC Investigators. But what I'm trying to articulate here is that perhaps if we could go into the record and look at the record, the applicant had not said that he had gone to this house. That was the first issue.

To proceed, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that at the time when this murder or killing took place, all the applicants were not more than 19 years old, all the applicants were minors so to speak. It is also my submission that when this Honourable Committee considers making its decision it should objectively and in fact, subjectively look at the situation under which youths, particularly politically active youths, were living.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, during this time it was just after the first very well-known 1985 State of Emergency, the police had very, very strong and big powers, the police were country-wide and particularly in youth and student sectors. The police were regarded as enemies. It is also a well-known fact and also it has been testified to by the applicants here that there were various calls that were made by prominent political activists, where the police had to be isolated and attacked.

Chairperson, it is my submission that it is common cause that this deceased person, Mr Ben Masinga, was a member of the police and was active as a policeman in the area. That is common cause. It is also common cause that the applicants before you were political activists in the area.

My submission, Chairperson, is that during that time all the political activists would want to - it would be to attack or kill a policeman. It's my submission, Chairperson, that it would perhaps so to speak, a cherry on top if they were to kill a notorious policeman. All members of the police I submit, were viewed as legitimate targets.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, Mr Masinga for the family, has conceded that it was not know, or at least to him, he did not know what the deceased did during his working hours. I therefore submit that it is possible that the deceased could have been known, perhaps wrongly so yes, but the deceased could have been known as a very powerful policeman.

I therefore submit Chairperson, that even if the deceased was not as notorious as the applicant had believed, the deceased was a policeman. Mr Masinga has also testified to the fact that it is correct that this deceased person was at some stage disarmed by other people, his gun was taken from him. And in my mind, Chairperson, it is inconceivable that a person who would have been a friend of the community so to speak, a person well-known and liked by people in the community, would have his weapon taken away.

CHAIRPERSON: But doesn't the fact that he wasn't killed when his gun was taken, indicate rather that he was well liked? Haven't we had hundreds of cases of policemen who were killed when their weapons were stolen?

MR KOOOPEDI: Chairperson, the evidence that was given to you was that he escaped after he was disarmed. This is what Chauke told you in his statement, that he knows that this person was attacked and his gun was taken and thereafter he escaped from the people who had ..., and that evidence has not been challenged, Chairperson.

I submit, Chairperson, that the applicants before you have complied with the requirements of the Act and it is my submission Chairperson, that they be granted amnesty. Thank you, Chairperson.

MR NYAWUZA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Members.

The testimony before us today is in direct contrast with what the family members are saying. Firstly, we are given a situation where there's a meeting to attack a particular police officer and all-of-a-sudden Linkie comes. Linkie is more-or-less a neighbour of Andrew Chauke. Linkie knocks, Andrew goes out, Linkie speaks to Andrew, Andrew comes back into the house, the other applicants haven't seen Linkie, they haven't heard what Linkie told Andrew Chauke, and they take what Andrew Chauke tells them without questioning.

The testimony of the next-of-kin before this Committee today is that there was a separation between the deceased and Linkie's sister. The fact that he was a police officer and having stayed at the particular address for a year, even during the period alluded to my friend as the first State of Emergency, was not taken into cognisance. He had been staying there for a year during 1995 when the State of Emergency was introduced. There's further evidence that there is another police officer who was staying at the same address at some particular time. The evidence further goes on to say that they then instead - they were going to attack some house with petrol bombs, they were not armed, but all-of-a-sudden when they are advised that there's Rambo that they are alluding to, which the family do not know, which the last applicant, Alfred Simelane, also said he was not sure as to whether the community knew him as Rambo, when they're told about him they all-of-a-sudden have to arm themselves, even though they are attacking the same person that they would - the person in the same capacity as the one they would have attacked with petrol bombs.

So our submission, and being my instructions, are that these guys were told to eliminate the deceased, not necessarily for political motives, but for motives best known to them and his wife, as there is testimony that she said she had hit a jackpot. So the next-of-kin are not happy with their disclosure, they are saying it's not full disclosure and it's on that basis that they oppose the granting of amnesty to them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Nyawuza, if you look back over the 14 years now, up to - let's see the position in 1986, wasn't it the position that a policeman was seen as an enemy by members of the liberation forces and that policemen were legitimate targets, that they even killed municipal policemen and that it wasn't only the notorious policemen but almost every policeman who didn't openly associate with the liberation forces? They were seen as enemies and targets and they were unfortunately killed in those circumstances, and isn't that what happened here too?

MR NYAWUZA: Honourable Chairperson, that is in fact the case, police officers were seen as targets, but we have police officers that stayed right throughout during that turmoil, they stayed in their houses and up until today they're staying in their houses. I lived with a police officer during that period. In 1985 I was doing Form 5, I was in Soweto in Pimville, police officers were being attacked but not all police officers were attacked.

Police officers that were seen to be aligned with the government at that time were the targets, but police officers that were seen to be very much on the side of the community were not attacked. I'm still staying in Pimville at the same address and I've been staying there for 34 years now. So the fact that - we concede, we do conceded that yes, it is so, most police officers were seen as targets, all of them in actual fact, but the whole thing in today's hearing is the motive.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but on that score, they didn't know the deceased, so the only motive there could be that they backed his ex-wife or his wife at that stage, in order to help her to gain pension. That's the suggested motive. But even that, there's no evidence even that some of them knew his wife. They knew Linkie. His wife doesn't seem to figure anywhere in this killing, Linkie figured. We don't know what Linkie's motive might have been, but as far as the evidence before us is concerned, they said they believed this is a policeman, they believed this is a notorious one, whether they're correct or not, and that was their motive for killing him.

MR NYAWUZA: Honourable Commissioner, I leave the decision as regards the granting of amnesty, in the capable hands of the Committee. With the evidence that we have before us, I believe a proper decision will be reached by yourselves. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I just want to get some - I will also just address the Commission on certain issues.

Regarding the position of Linkie, in the inquest she stated that she went to this specific house, Gilbert's house, and that she informed him that the deceased was presenting some problems at the time and then she had then - the applicant, Mr Chauke then approached her - I don't know where at that stage, she's not clear as to how he got to her or anything like that, and said that he would take care of everything. But her evidence goes further that she doesn't actually even ask him as to what he's going to do in the instance, she just leaves it at that and says "well I don't really know this person, he just said he's going to take care of everything", but she doesn't ask him or anything like that.

And then her evidence goes further that she was also in that vicinity in the room, not in the same room, but in the very same house where the incident occurred, Chairperson, and also she doesn't really know what had occurred and she doesn't really - she didn't see anything, she was with her baby there as well. That also seems a bit sceptical just at that evidence, Chairperson.

And then Alfred Simelane states that they received the information that he was in the dining-room and that seems to be specific information, and that only someone that is obviously linked to the deceased would be able to give that specific information. And it took them an hour, Chairperson, to arrange this whole operation and they went back and the deceased was still at the very same house. So there does seem to be some linkage as to the applicants and that particular house.

And then I don't think that it would have made a difference whether the deceased was known as Rambo, the notorious Rambo in this instance, I think that the fact that he was a policeman, that qualified him as a legitimate target for them, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it also clear they have said that they changed because he was a high-ranking target?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson, that is the evidence.

And also the fact that the deceased lived in that very same location, Chairperson, and it would also be clear that people living in that area would also know that there was a policeman residing there and just the fact that he was back in that area, it's possible that people or even that Mr Chauke would have for instance known that he was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't back in the area, he's just come to collect some things that evening.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson, but what I'm saying is that the fact that he actually resided there at some stage and that the applicant, Mr Chauke's for instance grandparents lived there, so it's possible ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it also, doesn't this add to this suggestion that the intention was a political one, it was to done, the body was to be left in the open so people could see that is what happens if a policeman comes back here?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson.

And then just in relation to the issue of motive. It was just that the wife's position in this instance was never put to the applicants, Chairperson. So in relation to that motive, the applicants in all fairness weren't cross-examined in relation to that.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no suggestion, as my colleague has said, of any relationship between the applicants and the deceased's wife.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson. That's basically my submissions on this matter. Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: There's only one strange thing for me, if they've expected a fight inside, going to kill somebody, why didn't they take the two strong men sitting at the bottom of the table with them and leave these two youngsters alone?

MR KOOPEDI: I believe I had asked this question and in particular to one of the applicants, who is Mr Modau, and I was told that he was not only very young but very thin at that stage. Having gone to exile made him look like he is today, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the Committee will consider its decision and you will be notified in due course.

MR KOOPEDI: As the Committee pleases, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We now adjourn till Wednesday morning is it?

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What time?

MS COLERIDGE: Is 9 o'clock in order?

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock.

Are you coming back or are you finished?

MR KOOPEDI: I am coming back, Chairperson, I'm ready to proceed on Wednesday.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock on Wednesday.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps Chairperson needs to explain that on Wednesday it's not for this matter. I heard them saying "Wednesday", believing that they should come back.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, on Wednesday it will be a completely different matter.