Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is our second day of sitting, hearing applications of Mr Thulani Cele and Roy Cele. Ms Thabethe, what is the position?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, I'm ready to proceed with my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cele, you are reminded this morning that you are still under your former oath. Ms Thabethe is going to put questions to you and you will be required to respond to those questions.

ROY BONGUMUSA CELE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair and Honourable Members of the Committee.

Mr Cele, when you were asked yesterday about why you participated, or why were the lady victims beaten up, you said:

"Because they were disturbing public peace"

Do you remember saying that?

MR CELE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Now my question to you with regard to that is, how was this act political, or how was it associated with a political objective? The act of beating these women.

MR CELE: Please repeat the question.

MS THABETHE: How was the act of beating the females, associated with a political objective?

MR CELE: That act of assaulting the women was associated with that objective because they were disturbing the proceedings, the normal practice of how we proceeded in the area.

MS THABETHE: I don't think I am answered, but I won't labour on that point. You've also applied for the assault on Dudu Ngcobo, who was also beaten up and eventually killed. My question to you is, how was the assault on Dudu Ngcobo, associated with a political objective? How was it political?

MR CELE: That assault was the result of her having brought the persons who were going to disturb the peace in the area.

MS THABETHE: And how was that political? That's my question. - if at all it was political.

MR CELE: The policy of the organisation was that a person who was responsible for bringing such ...(indistinct) persons who were going to disturb the peace in the area, that person was supposed to be punished.

MS THABETHE: And can you explain how did these people who were brought by Dudu - actually Dudu was one of them, she did not bring them into the area, she was one of them, how was it going to disturb peace in the ANC organisation?

MR CELE: If I remember correctly, it was explained previously that these people were not from this area, the person who was going to point out, or was going to show them around, was Dudu. Dudu was the person responsible for showing them around that area.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the pointed question, Mr Cele is, how did you know that the people who had come to your area were there to disturb the peace?

MR CELE: As I explained before, if they had come in peace, just to look for those body parts, they would have done so in a proper manner. Secondly, they were armed, which clearly indicated that they had not come there in peace.

MS THABETHE: I put it to you, Mr Cele, that the people who had come to the area had come for personal reasons and your suspecting that they were coming to disturb peace in the area, or in the ANC, there's nothing political about that. What is your response to that.

MR CELE: I can their intention was to disturb the peace in the area. That is, when they were questioned that is what emerged.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When you confronted these people, what is it that gave you an indication or an impression that they were there to disturb the peace in your area? The reason why I'm putting this question to you is because you are saying that subsequent to their questioning, it emerged that they were there to disturb the peace in your area, from the responses they gave to those who were questioning them. Now apart from what emanated from the enquiry you conducted at the hills, what indication, or what conduct of these people gave you an impression that they were there to disturb the peace in your area?

MR CELE: At the time there was no co-operation between two organisations. At that time a person from one organisation would not mix freely with others from another organisation. It would not have been easy for them to work with us or to be able to contact us. Even the way that they conducted themselves, they were shouting insults. It's clearly indicated that they did not come in peace.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you believe to have been the political affiliation of these persons?

MR CELE: Before they were questioned?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before they were questioned.

MR CELE: I believed that they belonged to another organisation, not mine, because in my organisation there was a policy regarding the way you conduct yourself when you come to a different area.

CHAIRPERSON: And this deduction is based solely on the fact that they hurled insults at you?

MR CELE: No, another reason was that they had not come to the house of one of our members, the house that they were in belonged to a person who belonged to another organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that person not your relative as well?

MR CELE: He was.

CHAIRPERSON: And merely because somebody visits somebody who is not a member of your organisation, did that in your mind create an impression that that person therefore belonged to a different organisation than your own?

MR CELE: No, that's not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Cele a prominent member of the IFP?

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What position did he hold within the IFP organisation in your area?

MR CELE: I am not certain of his position.

CHAIRPERSON: So how do you deduce his prominence, what is it that he does that made him to be a prominent member?

MR CELE: In most cases they held meetings at his house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you don't know what position he held within the IFP organisation?

MR CELE: No, I don't, I just know that he was a prominent member.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you often visit your father at his home?

MR CELE: As I explained before, because of political differences it was not easy to meet, to be with each other.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't share a calabash with him?

MR CELE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In your statement, Mr Cele, at paragraph 8, after Dudu Cele(sic) was sjamboked, you say it was decided that Amos Cele's house should be attacked. And then you proceed to say:

"All the people in the house ran away into different directions and the house was burnt."

My instructions, Mr Cele, are that when you came back from the hill, after Dudu Ngcobo was beaten up, there was nobody in the house except Zodwa Cele, and further that it is not true that you met people who ran away into different directions from their house. Do you have any comment on that?

MR CELE: Those instructions are not true.

MS THABETHE: Let's come to the death of Amos Cele. In your affidavit you have stated that there were people who came to your house to attack you and that's how Amos Cele was shot, or you returned shots at the people who had come to attack you. My instructions, Mr Cele, are that that is not how Amos Cele was killed, in actual fact there were people who came to Amos Cele's house to attack him. What is your response to that?

MR CELE: That is not correct, it is not true that they came to his house. There was no house because it had been burnt.

MS THABETHE: Further Mr Cele, my instructions are that even though his house had been burnt on the 26th, there was one hut which had remained and in which he stayed until he was taken out of it to be killed. What is your response to that?

MR CELE: There was no hut that was left remaining.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't it been the evidence of Mr Cele, that Mr Bonny's house for instance, was not burnt down? You were here listening to Mr Thulani Cele giving evidence before this Committee, and this is the evidence we have. So are you suggesting that you burnt all the houses?

MR CELE: If I remember correctly, Mr Cele said he had no knowledge of a hut that remained, he did not specifically say that there was a house that was not burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: He specifically said Mr Bonny Cele's house was not burnt down.

MR CELE: That was what was put to him and he responded by saying that he had no knowledge thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I could be wrong, but my recollection is that he did state that Bonny Cele's house was not burnt down. That's my recollection of his evidence yesterday.

MR CELE: He did not say so.

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, did you see ...(intervention)

MR CELE: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, did you see any other house being burnt down? Because your evidence also has only been to the effect that only the main house that belonged to Amos Cele, was burnt down. That is the evidence that is before us. Your evidence has not suggested in any way whatsoever, that other houses were also burnt down.

MR CELE: When I mentioned the house I was referring to every other house that was on the premises, I did not name specifically just one house.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to read you this, Mr Cele, it's from the judgment ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) was Bonny's house burnt down too?

MR CELE: It is not Bonny's house, but a hut that is on Mr Amos Cele's premises.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but was Bonny's hut burnt down?

MR CELE: Every hut that was on that premises was burnt down.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. Maybe I should make a follow-up question on that, before I proceed.

In your evidence earlier on you had stated that when Amos Cele's house was burnt you were not there because you had run after Bonny Cele, who was running away. Do you remember that?

MR CELE: Yes, I do remember.

MS THABETHE: Now what evidence do you have that all the houses in Amos Cele's kraal were burnt if you were not there?

MR CELE: I say this because I'm referring to a house that is in my area. You could see that everything had been burnt down.

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure if I'm getting your answer correctly, are you saying you saw that all the houses were burnt down, or are you assuming that all the houses were burnt down?

MR CELE: I am not assuming it, I know it for a fact that every house was burnt. After we had chased these people we returned and it was clear to see that everything had been burnt down.

MS THABETHE: Well I've already stated that my instructions are that not all the houses were burnt down and you have responded to that, so let's proceed.

With regard to the killing of Amos Cele - maybe before I start asking questions, Mr de Jager has questioned how old Mr Amos Cele was and my instructions are that he was 79 years old, Mr de Jager and the Honourable Members of the Committee.

My instructions Mr Cele, are that the incident happened at around 5 o'clock to 5.30 in the afternoon and not at 7p.m. Would you dispute this?

MR CELE: I do dispute it.

MS THABETHE: You have stated that ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose?

How did you know that the incident happened at about 7p.m.? What made you to be so alert to the issue of time, when this incident happened?

MR CELE: In summer everybody knows that it only gets at around seven. At about 5 o'clock the sun is still out, it's still not dark.

CHAIRPERSON: So when this incident happened, it was in the early hours of the evening?

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was almost dark?

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My instructions, Mr Cele, are that you are not telling the truth when you say Mr Amos Cele went to your house to attack you and that is how he got to be killed. My instructions are that what had occurred is that a group of people came to his house, he was taken outside to a bush where he was killed. What is your response to that?

MR CELE: That person has given you false instructions.

MS THABETHE: I would like to read from the judgment, on page 118 at of the bundle, and Mr Cele, I would like you to listen. It's on line 13(?), page 118. It says

"On the evidence of Ngcobo, Beauty and Tandi, the group got hold of the deceased (the deceased in this case is Amos Cele) and marched him along a path which when past Madlala's kraal."

I'll go down until the second-last sentence. It says:

"From there the group disappeared into a bush and it was in that bush that the deceased was killed."

Just before line 10, I proceed:

"It appears that the deceased was stabbed and shot once with a home-made firearm. He was also set alight by means of the by now well-known necklace method. A tyre was namely put over and tied onto him. Petrol was poured over it and it was set alight. It is not clear however, whether the necklacing occurred before or after he was killed. The post-mortem examination could not throw any light on this question, in fact the body of the deceased was so badly burnt that Dr Govender was unable to determine the cause of death. He even found it impossible to say whether or not the deceased had been stabbed or shot."

What is your response to that?

MR CELE: What I can comment about the evidence that was rendered in Court, it was false evidence because everybody who testified in Court had already fled the area because they knew that if they were to be seen in that area they would be in trouble.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you stab the deceased at any stage?

MR CELE: No, I did not stab him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any person in your group stabbing the deceased at any stage?

MR CELE: No, I did not see anyone stabbing him.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people were with you at the time when you shot at the deceased?

MR CELE: There were many of us, more than 10.

CHAIRPERSON: And exactly where were you when you shot the deceased? How far were you from Madlala's kraal?

MR CELE: It was not very far from Mr Madlala's kraal.

CHAIRPERSON: And how far is Madlala's kraal from your house?

MR CELE: It is close to my house, it's not very far.

CHAIRPERSON: How close, in terms of paces? Can you estimate by probably pointing inside the hall, how far Madlala would be from that point to where the doors of this hall are?

MR CELE: I cannot estimate in this hall, this space is too short. It is a bit further than this area.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many of you were armed when this incident occurred?

MR CELE: There was no person who was unarmed in the area.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about your group. How many of you in your group were armed?

MR CELE: I am aware of myself, but I can say that the others in my group were also armed, although I could not specify just how many of them were armed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness anyone of your group pouring petrol around the deceased, I mean on the deceased?

MR CELE: No, I did not see anyone.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anyone putting a tyre around his neck?

MR CELE: No, I did not see anybody with a tyre in his possession.

CHAIRPERSON: When you left the scene, what was the state of the deceased? Did you leave him there after you had shot at him and was he there after having been shot and you didn't see anyone putting fire on his body? Is that how you left the scene?

MR CELE: I cannot dispute that his body could have been burnt, but I did not witness that because all of this happened quickly. We just shot him and left him there immediately, because we were still looking for the others that he had been with.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the last person to leave the scene?

MR CELE: No, I was not.

CHAIRPERSON: After you had shot at the deceased, what happened?

MR CELE: We then tried to rush after the others who had run in different directions and when we failed to locate them we returned to your homes.

CHAIRPERSON: So the whole group was still pursuing the others who were with the deceased?

MR CELE: Not all of us. There were some who had specifically attacked the deceased whilst some pursued the rest of his group. There were many people involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Please just allow us to understand your evidence properly. You were in the group that attacked the deceased, whilst the others were pursuing those who were fleeing, is that not so?

MR CELE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm talking about your group, the one that remained with the deceased, attacked him. After shooting the deceased, what did your group do?

MR CELE: As I mentioned before, we were all in a hurry because after shooting and killing the deceased, we were all hurrying to try and pursue the rest of the group. I could not therefore see if some people remained behind or what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of you participated in the attacking of the deceased and the shooting that followed, in the process of attacking the deceased? I know you were a group of about 10, but how many of you participated in the actual attacking of the deceased?

MR CELE: I know of Bongani Khumalo, who shot him.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm saying how many? I haven't actually come to asking the identities of the person who were in the group. How many people participated in attacking the deceased? I know the group split into two, one remained with the deceased and the other group pursued those who were fleeing. So how many of you were there when the deceased was attacked?

MR CELE: As I have mentioned before, we were about 10. The only person that I witnessed also attacking the deceased was that other person.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was yourself and Bongani Khumalo, who remained and attacked the deceased, that's your evidence?

MR CELE: It was not just the two of us who attacked him.

CHAIRPERSON: You are unable to remember how many people remained behind whilst the rest of the group pursued those who were fleeing.

MR CELE: I do not remember just how many people there were when the deceased was attacked, I just remember Bongani.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want you to tell us how many people actually attacked the deceased, what I want to know is how many of you were there around the deceased at the time of his attack.

MR CELE: I mentioned before that we were about 10.

CHAIRPERSON: You were a group of 10 when you were attacked, you returned fire and you pursued. Some of you remained with the deceased whilst the other group ran after the people who were fleeing. So obviously amongst this group of 10, some must have remained with the deceased whilst the others ran after those who were fleeing. So you couldn't have been 10 at the time when the deceased was attacked.

MR CELE: I did not mean to say that there were 10 of us when I was first attacked, what I meant was, the group of people who ran after the deceased were about 10, but there were others who ran after those people who were fleeing.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't seem to be making any progress, so I will leave this point. Ms Thabethe?

MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you allow her, Chair.

May I just get clarity. When Ms Thabethe read you the portion from the judgment on page 119, she read about the necklacing and the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Govender, and she asked you for your comment and you said it was a lie, it wasn't true. Was the deceased not necklaced? Is that your evidence?

MR CELE: I said I do not know. It is possible that maybe some people remained and then they necklaced him.

MR MALAN: But at no stage did you have any knowledge, personal knowledge, that he indeed was necklaced?

MR CELE: I learnt of it in Court.

MR MALAN: Now the second thing, I want to refer you to your statement, paragraph 9. Now that version is somewhat different from the evidence we have now. If I can read you - do you have paragraph 9 before you? There you say that at about seven in the evening you were at home alone, all your family had left. You were seated outside because it wasn't safe to stay in the house. You needed to stay outside and guard the area. Now get clear here, you were alone. Then you saw a group of people coming in, you first thought that they were comrades, you called out to them and they started shooting. Then you say that luckily you were standing behind a big tree. You then protected yourself. You had a pump-gun. You were then joined by people from the area, who returned shots at the direction of these people. They then ran away and you pursued them. One of them tried - I think it's hid, I'm not sure what it should read - behind a bush, but you shot at someone that you found behind the bush. The others got away. And you then went back to your homes. Now that sentence is the same as the evidence thusfar, the rest is quite different. And then especially the last sentence where you say

"I believe that the person I shot was Amos Cele, as he was found dead the next day."

Now how did you find him the next day?

MR CELE: I did not mean that I found him, but he was found by the police. That's what I heard.

MR MALAN: Now would you think that you were the person who had shot Amos Cele?

MR CELE: I thought so because his body was found at that spot where I had shot at the person.

MR MALAN: At what spot was that?

MR CELE: Near Madlala's kraal.

MR MALAN: But your evidence now is that there were a lot of attackers and there were a lot of people pursuing them and there were a lot of people shooting. You can remember only Bongani Khumalo, but you weren't the only person shooting, or were you?

MR CELE: Bongani and myself were pursuing this one person, that is the person we shot near Madlala's kraal and Amos Cele was found, his body was found at that spot the following day. That is why I say I believe that must have been the person I shot.

MR MALAN: Let me just take you back to your statement. Please read again paragraph 9, about in the middle. You say

"I was then joined by people from the area, who returned shots at the direction of these people."

So the people joined you where you found yourself, at your home, behind the tree. The people then ran away and you pursued and one of these persons found shelter behind a bush and you shot him once. Is that correct?

MR CELE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you recognise Amos Cele then? Did you know that that person was Amos Cele?

MR CELE: No.

MR MALAN: Right. But you shot one person, but all the others were present, also shooting. Why do you believe that Amos Cele was that person that you shot, why not shot by some of the others, or one of the others?

MR CELE: That is because he is the only person who was found shot and the only person that I remember shooting was Bongani, whom I mentioned. I explained before that the others managed to escape.

MR MALAN: Right. You returned to your home.

MR CELE: After that we tried to communicate with the rest of our group, trying to find out if they had managed to catch one of these other persons and it transpired that nobody had been caught and then we returned home.

MR MALAN: Yes, and you went back to your home?

MR CELE: Yes.

MR MALAN: And nobody told you that Amos Cele was necklaced, you never heard of that?

MR CELE: No.

MR MALAN: Do you accept that he indeed was necklaced, or do you believe that it is a lie?

MR CELE: I would not know because I did not see it. I cannot dispute nor agree with it.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure, when that passage on page 119 of the bundle, from the judgment, was read out to you, you said that it was not true. Why did you say that it wasn't true, that he was necklaced?

MR CELE: I was disputing that one of us necklaced him.

MR MALAN: Now who would have necklaced him, if we accept that he was necklaced? And clearly he was necklaced because we have an independent doctor who did the post-mortem examination and we must accept that he was indeed necklaced and burnt. Who would have burnt him if it's not from your group?

MR CELE: I cannot say because I cannot say for certain that he was not burnt by even one of the group, but all I'm saying is that I did not witness such an incident.

MR MALAN: And he was killed close to your house. That bush that you shot him at, that was close to your place.

MR CELE: Not very close, but yes, it is.

MR MALAN: Can you point us in the hall?

MR CELE: As I mentioned before, this area is too short, I would not be able to make an estimation here. The distance is further than, is longer than this hall.

MR MALAN: How much longer, two times the length of the hall, three times, four times? Can you give us an indication?

MR CELE: Maybe about two-and-a-half, two or three times the hall.

MR MALAN: And if he had been necklaced you probably would have known of it, or you should have known of it, it was close enough for you to have witnessed it.

MR CELE: I would have not known about it if no-one informed me of it.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he armed, did he shoot at you?

MR CELE: As I explained before, it was dark, I could not see who was armed and who was not amongst that group, I just heard gunfire.

ADV DE JAGER: But you were sure that you've hit somebody and killed somebody, is that correct?

MR CELE: I was certain that I had shot someone, but I did not know whether that person died or not.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't your comrades go up and see whether they could find a weapon and they could use that weapon, because weapons were really wanted in those days?

MR CELE: No, that did not happen, we were all in a hurry because we were rushing to pursue the others who had been with him.

ADV DE JAGER: So do you say all of you left the scene?

MR CELE: I cannot say everyone left, because we did not all leave at the same time.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, so somebody could have gone up, you wouldn't know? Go to the corpse there.

MR CELE: I would not dispute it, it could have been possible.

ADV DE JAGER: And you've said that the distance from your house was about two to three times the length of this wall, would that be say 150 yards, 120 yards?

MR CELE: I would not be able to estimate in yards, but as I said before, it could be two-and-a-half to three times the hall.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Have you seen a fire there or smoke, coming from the place where he was shot?

MR CELE: I could have seen if there was a fire. I'm not sure about smoke, but I could have been able to see if there was a fire there.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(end of side A of tape)

MR CELE: I cannot specify or say if somebody did return and burn his body. I did not witness it, that's why I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Cele, how far was the Madlala's kraal from Amos Cele's house?

MR CELE: It is close, the distance could be one-and-a-half times this hall. It could be one-and-a-half times this hall.

MS THABETHE: My instructions that it's from, let's say from where we are, it's from here to the other side of the road. Would you agree on the distance?

MR CELE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR CELE: As I say, it could be one-and-a-half times this hall.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, approximately 70(?) yards.

MS THABETHE: And how far was Madlala's kraal from your home?

MR CELE: It's a bit of a distance. It could be three-and-a-half times this hall, or even four times this hall.

MS THABETHE: My instructions are that it's further than that, it's from - let's say it's about 10 kilometres from here. What is your response to that?

MR CELE: That is not true.

MS THABETHE: What would you say the distance is then, in terms of kilometres? - from your home to the Madlala's kraal.

MR CELE: As I mentioned before, it could be four times the distance of this hall, or three-and-a-half times.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure whether it's what he said. I thought he said it's about four times the houses around the area and not this hall. Let's just get clarity on that.

Could you please repeat your estimation of the distance from your home to Madlala's kraal, using this hall.

MR CELE: It could be three-and-a-half to four times the hall.

CHAIRPERSON: You are correct, Ms Translator.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Yes, I've already stated that my instructions are that it's about 10 kilometres, it's very, very far. Those are my instructions.

Now my next question is, you say Mr Amos Cele was one of the people who came to your house to attack you, are you suggesting that when they ran away and when you shot him, he had run the distance from your home almost to his house, because his house is not far from the Madlala kraal? Is that what you are suggesting?

MR CELE: I am referring to a person that I pursued from my home to near Mr Madlala's kraal. As I mentioned before, I believe it was Mr Cele because his body was found on that spot.

MS THABETHE: How long did you chase him for?

MR CELE: I cannot estimate the time, but I did pursue him.

MS THABETHE: Can't you approximate?

MR CELE: No.

MS THABETHE: Well I won't take the matter any further, I'll pursue it in my argument.

My next question is, why was Amos Cele killed?

MR MALAN: Ms Thabethe, I don't think we have to pursue that. I mean he didn't know that he killed Amos Cele at that time, he was simply found dead.

MS THABETHE: I thought he said he's the one who fired the shot that killed him.

MR MALAN: Yes, but he didn't know the identity. He told us the story about the attack and the pursuance and the person behind the bush, which he believes to have been Amos Cele, but he did not intend to kill Amos Cele, in terms of his own evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe rephrase your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you kill the person hiding behind the bush?

MR CELE: He is the person I had been pursuing from my home.

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question. Why did you kill the person who was hiding behind the bush?

MR CELE: That is because they had attacked me first.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know why they were attacking you?

MR CELE: No, I cannot know that. It could have been that it was the very same person who had been lashed, coming to pay their revenge.

CHAIRPERSON: And this incident happened on the 28th of December, is it not so?

MR CELE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not recognise any of the people who were shooting at you at the time when you were shot at, did you?

MR CELE: I did explain before that it was already dark, I could not recognise any.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know who was shooting at you?

MR CELE: I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when you were shooting you were merely returning fire because people were shooting at you, and that is all you can say?

MR CELE: Yes, that is what I'm saying, I was trying to defend myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No further questions, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Before I give Mr Molohlanye an opportunity to re-examine, may I just get clarity on one point. During my questioning you indicated that the only other person who fired a shot at Mr Cele, was Bongani Khumalo. You recall saying that?

MR CELE: Yes, I would say he is the one person that also shot and he was also my co-accused and we were both convicted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not interested in what happened during your criminal trial, I'm interested in the evidence that you've already given to this Committee. You said Mr Bongani Khumalo also fired a shot at Mr Cele.

MR CELE: Yes, he is the one who fired the shots.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR CELE: He was next to me.

CHAIRPERSON: But how did you know that the shot that came out of Mr Khumalo's gun, landed on the same person that you also shot at? It was at night. That's your evidence. How would you know that?

MR CELE: I am referring to the fact that he also fired in the same direction that I did.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people were around you at the time when you were firing at this person who was hiding behind a bush - apart from Mr Khumalo?

MR CELE: As I've said before, there were maybe eight, because we were about 10.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you notice whether any of them also fired in the direction of the person who was hiding behind the bush?

MR CELE: At the time when we fired shots no-one was shooting, nobody else was shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was only yourself and Bongani Khumalo who was firing at that time?

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you wouldn't know as you are sitting here today, whether the person you thought you shot at was indeed shot by you or by Mr Khumalo, you wouldn't say that?

MR CELE: I am certain of the shots that I fired, I'm not sure about Mr Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you and Mr Khumalo were the only ones in your group who fired the shot in the direction of that person?

MR CELE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So sitting here you are unable to say for sure that the shot that you fired landed on the person who was hiding behind the bush.

MR CELE: I am certain that I did fire a shot at that person, because he was very far, he was close.

CHAIRPERSON: How close is close? Maybe you can give us a better complexion to your evidence, yes? Can you estimate?

MR CELE: As I'm sitting here, he could be ...(indistinct) right at that table where you are sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: That's quite close, I would say that's about two paces.

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you fired a shot, did you see your shot landing on Mr Cele, or on the person hiding behind the bush? You were quite close remember.

MR CELE: No, I did not see the shot landing, but if you shoot at somebody you see them falling.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who shot first, was it yourself or Mr Khumalo?

MR CELE: I fired first.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you shot the person fell from the tree, is that what you are saying?

MR CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And at what stage did Mr Khumalo shoot?

MR CELE: Immediately thereafter. He also shot immediately after I had fired my shot.

CHAIRPERSON: After shooting at this person, did you walk up to him, I mean you were quite close, to see who this person was?

MR CELE: No, we did not. As I said before, we were just too busy, we were in a hurry, trying to pursue the others. He was not alone, he had been with others. So we were hurrying to pursue the rest.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, how did you know that it was Mr Khumalo who had fired immediately after you?

MR CELE: I know Mr Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you recognise him at that stage?

MR CELE: Yes, he was next to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Now were you unable to recognise the person that you had shot at, when you were only two paces away from him?

MR CELE: It was dark and he was behind a tree, it was not very easy to recognise that person.

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't dark enough for you not to see that Mr Khumalo, standing also close to you, had fired a shot in the direction of the same person that you had fired at.

MR CELE: We had been pursuing this person together with Mr Khumalo, and he was standing next to me and when I fired a shot he also fired from his gun.

CHAIRPERSON: If it had been Mr Cele that you had shot at, bearing in mind that this is your father, would you not have recognised him at the time when he fell down? Would you not have recognised him? We are not talking about a stranger, we are talking about your father. Would you not have been able to have recognised him? You were only two paces away from that person. We just want an honest answer from you.

MR CELE: Yes, I am telling the truth. If it's dark and there are no lights around I would not recognise a person. Even if you know them you would not recognise them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you were able to recognise Mr Khumalo.

MR CELE: I have explained that we had been pursuing this person together with Mr Khumalo. He was close to me, next to me.

CHAIRPERSON: There were also seven other people who you say were in your group, is it not so? You said there were about eight of you.

MR CELE: They were not just next to me, but at other specific points. They were actually safeguarding the area so that this person should not be able to escape. The person who was next to me was Mr Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: May I just ask ...

ADV DE JAGER: You were pursuing this person, you and Mr Khumalo, is that correct?

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: How far in front of you did he run?

MR CELE: That far, not very far.

ADV DE JAGER: About the distance from me to you?

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And was that - when you got out behind the tree where they were shooting at you, he was about this distance in front of you and he started running when you started shooting, is that right?

MR CELE: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Where was he at the time when you were behind the tree and you were returning the fire?

MR CELE: About as far as that wall.

ADV DE JAGER: Alright, that's about 20 metres, isn't it?

MR CELE: I'm referring to that wall, this wall in front.

ADV DE JAGER: This one?

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So then you start pursuing this man.

MR CELE: Yes, we started pursuing him.

ADV DE JAGER: And he ran.

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you chased him.

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you managed to catch up with him near Mr Madlala's house.

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And that's about, you said perhaps four times the length of this wall, from your house where you were standing behind the tree?

MR CELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So you were chasing this old man of 79 years for a distance of say 150 yards and you didn't even catch up with him, he managed to get behind a tree and then you shot at him. Is that what you're telling us?

MR CELE: If you chase after a person at night you will not just go running wildly, you will chase him in such a way that he does not disappear from your sight, but you just don't go running wildly, because you do not know what he's leading you to.

ADV DE JAGER: Could your father run at that stage, wasn't he too old to run, he merely trotted, or could he run? An old man of 79 years.

MR CELE: He could run.

ADV DE JAGER: And he almost outran you, is that so?

MR CELE: If we had been running a race he would not have outrun us. As I mentioned before, you just did not go around running wildly because you did not where he was running to. You were careful.

ADV DE JAGER: And the other people running with him, did they outrun him and they vanished in the darkness, they disappeared in the darkness.

MR CELE: They ran in different directions and they managed to escape.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Did you ever establish the identity of the attackers? Do you know who attacked you on that night?

MR CELE: No, I did not, because I could not get that information from anyone.

MR MALAN: Now at that stage, that night after you had shot this person hiding in the bush, you knew that you had hit him, that's your evidence.

MR CELE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Didn't you want to know who the attackers were? When the others escaped, did you not return to the bush to look for that person that you had shot there?

MR CELE: It would have been difficult to do so, because is was not safe. If I had returned maybe I could have put myself in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose. I find it very strange that it should be dangerous for you and your comrades to come back to find out the identity of the person who you had shot, because you saw that the others had actually escaped whilst you were pursuing them and by the time you came back, you say you all went back to your respective homes. Surely as people who were under constant attack, as you want us to believe you, you would have had an interest to go back with your group, which wouldn't have been that unsafe because you knew then that they had escaped, to establish the identity of the person that you had shot.

I want to put it to you that there was nothing that would have posed danger on you and your group to have been able to establish the identity of the person that you had shot at.

MR CELE: It was dangerous because we did not know where the others had escaped to. If we had gone back to establish that identity, it could be that the rest would have come back and attacked us.

CHAIRPERSON: You must bear in mind the evidence that you've already led before us. This person died not too far away from your own home. Now what dangers would have been posed by that kind of locality?

MR CELE: It is not safe when you fight at night because you may assume that people have escaped, run away whilst they're hiding somewhere and when you return to check up on something, those same people may as well just spring up on you and attack you.

MR MALAN: Mr Cele, why did you not check the next morning when the sun was up? Why did you not go back to that place where you knew you had shot a person? You didn't know the identity of your attackers, but you make no effort to establish their identity.

MR CELE: The intention was to defend myself and to protect myself and I had already done that.

MR MALAN: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, do you have any re-examination to do on Mr Cele?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson, I don't have any questions for Mr Cele.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cele, I just want clarity on one thing. It has been your evidence that you didn't know who your attackers were on that night, you however, suspected that it must be the same people that you had released about three days ago after you had sjamboked them at the hills, is that not so?

MR CELE: Yes, I did have such suspicions, because even the area was not safe at the time because people were coming to your house, rob you and leave you just like that. No-one was safe in the area at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have then had some misgivings why you had even released them on the 25th, is that not so? That thought must have crossed your mind.

MR CELE: Yes, it did occur to me that yes, we should not have released them, because to assault somebody and then to release him is dangerous.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you had shot at this person that you didn't know, you make no effort to establish his exact identity the next day in order to make sure that what you had been thinking is either disproved or confirmed, that these people were still constantly coming back to you.

MR CELE: No, I did not make any attempts.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR CELE: I did not regard that as important to establish the person's identity. I did not see the need to go and check.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though you fear that it could be the same people that you had released three days ago? And if that is so, there was a possibility of them coming back to attack you again.

MR CELE: Yes, I was suspicious that it could be them, but there was nothing else I could do except to keep watch and remain alert, so that whoever comes, whether they be a criminal or people from an opposing organisation, we had to defend ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you take this issue up with any of the ANC structures in your area?

MR CELE: The only people that we informed were those who were part of that structure.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about a formal ANC structure in your area. Was this reported to a formal ANC structure in your area?

MR CELE: An ANC structure?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no English interpretation)

MR CELE: We could not report to any ANC structure, we only reported to the structure that was in the area. Because even the police were pursuing us, they were shooting at us because of the people we had assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have discussed with the people who had been there the night before, about the attack that had occurred on that night. Did you not on the following day, with the people who had participated in assisting you in returning fire against those who were attacking you at your home, did you not discuss this incident the next day?

MR CELE: Normally there would be a meeting held to discuss such matters, but because of the situation at the time, there were police around. There was no time to hold such a meeting. The police even mentioned when they came to our homes, that their intention was not to arrest us, but to kill us. If they found you or they came upon a meeting, the only thing that they did was shoot at people.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not informally discuss with the people who had come to your defence, being your neighbours, about the incident that had happened the night before?

MR CELE: We only held such discussions when we returned from pursuing them and we all felt that it could be those persons who had been assaulted, but a formal meeting was never held.

CHAIRPERSON: And the next day you never went to investigate about the identity of the person that you had shot at the night before?

MR CELE: No, I could not do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though this happened just a few paces away from your house.

MR CELE: A place that would be near my home would be something that happens just outside the gate. As I mentioned before, the distance was about four times this hall. I would not have just gone to check there.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking a distance of approximately 150 yards, are we not? Would you regard that as being that long? To me that's a fairly short distance.

MR CELE: It was not very far. I could have gone, but it was not easy. It did not occur to me to go and check who that person was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, we take it that this is the end of the applicant's case. Do you propose to call any further witnesses to support the Cele applications?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I would like to call only one witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what would be the import of his evidence, before we allow him to come and give evidence? Can you briefly give an indication to this Committee as to what would be the import of his evidence? If you don't mind.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I think the importance would be in connection with Roy Cele, the second application, that he was there, he was present when Mr Amos Cele was shot. Both of them were there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, you obviously are aware that Mr Roy Cele is unable to say who he shot at. That is the evidence before us.

MR MOLOHLANYE: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now of what relevance will the witness whom you propose to call, shed in respect of the identity of the person that is alleged to have been shot by Mr Roy Cele? Will he be able to shed more light about who that person was?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Not necessarily as to identity, but in terms of the area where the person was shot and how far the person was from where they were and could they easily identify the person from that distance. Taking into consideration that it was also in the evening and it was dark. That's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, without even consulting my Committee, and I will do so immediately, those facts are not in dispute and they're not material to us ultimately, satisfying ourselves whether Mr Cele qualifies for amnesty or not.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. I'd like to apologise on that ground because I thought - I was listening to the questioning and I thought maybe as to the relevance to the application in terms of the deceased and his identity.

CHAIRPERSON: We have conceded to your request to call another witness to give evidence in the terms that you have already indicated to this Committee, even though we feel that that kind of evidence is not sufficiently relevant to enable us to decide whether Mr Cele qualifies for amnesty in terms of the Act that is governing this Committee. We will however, allow you to call that witness and lead such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cele, ...(no English interpretation)

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Could the witness come forward please.

MR MOLOHLANYE: My witness is Bongani Richard Khumalo.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he aware that you are going to call him as a witness? Mr Molohlanye, is he aware that you are going to call him, was he made aware of the fact that he was going to be called in as a witness?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, he was here yesterday to give us evidence and then he's also here today because he's implicated in the same matter. I'm not too sure whether he was here to visit or to give any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking is because when you call Mr Bongani Khumalo, he is a person who has become implicated during these proceedings. You are aware of that?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I am aware.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we were not aware that Mr Khumalo would be implicated, we have just become aware that he is now an implicated person and in terms of our Act, any implicated person must be notified of these proceedings and must be made aware of his right to legal representation, to the extent that he wants to oppose insofar as his implication is concerned.

I am asking this question because during the viva voce evidence of Mr Roy Cele in particular, Mr Bongani Khumalo was implicated. So we have to notify him in terms of Section 30, since he has recently become an implicated during the viva voce evidence of Mr Cele.

However, if you have consulted with him and he will be giving evidence in support of Mr Cele's application and he consents to giving such evidence, we will not prevent you from calling Mr Khumalo as Mr Cele's witness.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Without wasting much of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to just advise him of his rights and make sure that he understands?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I would like to take an adjournment of about five minutes so that I can consult with Mr Khumalo and make sure that he understands what is about to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we take an adjournment, I note that Ms Thabethe is about to say something or is very eager to say something to the Committee, and I will afford her an opportunity to do so.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't object to an adjournment being taken, but I would just like to put on record that Mr Bongani Khumalo was initially an applicant in this matter, but he withdrew his application and subsequently he was notified as an implicated person, in terms of Section 19(4).

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. In that case, I don't think we would actually waste Mr Molohlanye's time. It would appear that you have consulted and you had consulted with the person who was fully privy of what his rights were and he has decided not to exercise his rights insofar as his implication is concerned, and he's prepared to come and give evidence in support of Mr Cele's application. We will allow him to come up and testify in Mr Cele's application.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I thank you, Madam Chair. You may call Mr Bongani Khumalo to the stand, Mr Molohlanye.

MR MALAN: May I just make sure, Mr Molohlanye. You did consult with Khumalo?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I did consult with Mr Khumalo yesterday, but I'd like to get five minutes adjournment, on a second thought, that I should thoroughly speak to him and make sure that he understands why he was notified to be here.

MR MALAN: No, that's not the question. Did you consult with him on the basis of calling him, of potentially calling him as a witness?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No, I did not. They told that to me yesterday, that he was here and he was their witness, that is the accused, and I therefore ...(indistinct) that if there is a need I will call him to give evidence in this.

MR MALAN: My question is, did you consult with Mr Khumalo himself?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No, not formally so.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean "not formally", what kind of consultation is that? It's either there is a consultation or there is no consultation. I thought when you started addressing us, when I wanted to find out the import of the witness you intended calling, you indicated that you had consulted with that witness yesterday.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I spoke to Mr Bongani yesterday, that this is the position and then if I necessarily need him to - that's how far I consulted with him.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, you have not consulted with Mr Khumalo, as a witness you intend to use in support of Mr Cele's application. Isn't that the position? You are confusing us.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I'll accept, Your Worship, and I apologise to that.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact you don't know whether he will actually consent to being a witness. You still have to take instructions from him and find out whether he is prepared to be a witness in these applications, is it not so?

MR MOLOHLANYE: That's so. I presumed to the positive, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So it was incorrect of you to intimate to this Committee what the import of his evidence will be because you haven't consulted.

MR MOLOHLANYE: As I said earlier, I'll apologise to the Honourable Committee on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you must never give an indication to something that you don't know. You don't know what would be the import of his evidence. And what already now appears in our record is incorrect, because you still haven't had a proper consultation with Mr Khumalo. You simply intimated that he might be used. As what and to what extent, those issues were not canvassed with him.

We take a very dim view of counsel not doing his work properly, Mr Molohlanye. We are going to afford you a five minute adjournment. If there should be any need for you to need to consult with Mr Khumalo further, please give an indication by advising our secretary, Ms Galane, if you need more time.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molohlanye, we adjourned to enable you to take instructions from Mr Khumalo, and to also consult with the applicants concerned, about the possibility of calling further witnesses in support of their applications. What is the position now?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have consulted with the witness and the applicants. I hereby withdraw the earlier request I made to call Bongani Khumalo as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: So you close your case?

MR MOLOHLANYE: That is correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molohlanye. Ms Thabethe, what is the position? Do you propose to call any witnesses on behalf of the objectors?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do wish to call two witnesses, Madam Chair, based on the fact that the victims have indicated that they are opposing the application and based on the fact that I've put some facts to the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are aware of that. Will proceed to call your first witness.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. My first witness will be Zodwa Cele.

EMILY ZODWA CELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Ms Cele, can you tell the Committee how you are related to Amos Cele.

MS E Z CELE: My father.

MS THABETHE: Was Amos Cele an IFP member?

MS E Z CELE: No, he wasn't.

MS THABETHE: In the area you were staying in at Manyasene, was there any political conflict in that area?

MS E Z CELE: No, there wasn't any political conflicts or violence.

MS THABETHE: On the 25th, our should I say the 24th, you had victors at your home. Were you present when these visitors arrived?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, I was present.

MS THABETHE: Do you remember how many visitors came to your house?

MS E Z CELE: Five of them.

MS THABETHE: Am I correct if I say it was Dudu Ngcobo, Ernest Ngcobo and three other people?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, that's correct.

MS THABETHE: Do you know why they came to visit your house on that day?

MS E Z CELE: They came to visit because my mother is a Ngcobo family, so these are her niece and nephews. My mother is their aunt.

MS THABETHE: Are there any reasons why they came to your house, besides what you've told the Committee now?

MS E Z CELE: They came to visit because it was Xmas. They stayed for overnight until the following day.

MS THABETHE: You have heard the evidence of the applicants with regard to these visitors and the fact that your visitors were shouting at the applicant, that they wanted Martin's arm. Do you have any knowledge of this, or did you witness any of that?

MS E Z CELE: That is not true, they never shouted. The only person who shouted was Dudu, who was saying the people of this area are not good and she was wondering where the arm of her brother was.

MS THABETHE: Did she direct this to anybody in particular? - to your knowledge. Was she talking to somebody when she said this?

MS E Z CELE: No, she wasn't directing it to anyone, she didn't even mention anyone's name. She just said "this area, these people of this area". She didn't mention any name.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose. Where was she when she said this?

MS E Z CELE: At my place, outside the yard.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

On the 26th of December 1989, did any people from the visitors or from your home go to Thulani's house to attack?

MS E Z CELE: No, on-one. I was with them at home, no-one went to Thulani's home.

MS THABETHE: Can you tell this Committee what happened when you were taken to the hill for questioning and eventually beaten up.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, without influencing how you are adducing your evidence, couldn't you probably start by asking her how they came to be taken to the hills?

MS THABETHE: That's what I asked, Madam Chair, I said how did it come about that they were taken up the hill. Can you answer that question?

MS E Z CELE: On the 26th of December in the afternoon we saw many people gathering at Thulani's place. I think if I can estimate there were about 500 to 600. We saw all of them coming to my place ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Can you take it a bit slower because the interpreters are interpreting for the Panel, so can you take it a bit slower. Okay, you may proceed.

MS E Z CELE: They came to my place, they were armed. They entered the yard, they took all of us. They didn't ask us, they forcefully took all of us.

They went with us to the hill and when we arrived there they asked us who told us that they had killed Martin, and we told them that we didn't know what they were talking about. That's when they started beating us. We were beaten 50 lashes, and they told us to go back home.

We went back home ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Hold on. At the hill, the applicants have testified that they asked to you to which organisation you belonged to and you said you belonged to the IFP. Were these questions asked?

MS E Z CELE: No, they didn't ask all of us, they only asked Ernest Ngcobo, who was from Umlazi. We were not affiliated with any political organisation, so they didn't even ask us.

MS THABETHE: Okay, you may proceed. You said they let you go and then what happened?

MR MALAN: Sorry, what did Ernest answer?

MS E Z CELE: I don't know what Ernest said to them. I didn't even know what they asked me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they ask you anything at all?

MS E Z CELE: They didn't ask me anything after that. That's when they started beating us.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you were asked?

MS E Z CELE: They asked me who told the people from Umlazi that they had killed Martin.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

Who was - may I interpose again. Who was doing the questioning on behalf of this large group?

MS E Z CELE: Thulani was the one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can you then briefly continue and tell the Committee that they let you go, and then what happened thereafter?

MS E Z CELE: We went back home. On our way we met Tami(?). They were with Dudu. I don't know what they did to Dudu up in the hill. When I was at home trying to change, because I was bleeding, they came again running, many of them.

My sister, my elder sister came and said to us we must run and then everyone went out and ran. I saw Lako Khumalo. He was wearing a white T-shirt. ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, when you were changing clothes you say you were bleeding. Who else was at your place? Where were the people from Umlazi area, or the other people that came from outside?

MS E Z CELE: They were already gone.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: You were still saying when the people came they found you at the house. Can you continue from there?

MS E Z CELE: Lako pointed a gun at my ear.

MS THABETHE: Where were you at that time?

MS E Z CELE: I was near home. That is where they caught me when I was trying to run away.

MS THABETHE: When they came to your house at that time, was there anybody else besides you in the house?

MS E Z CELE: They only found myself and my elder sister. My sister ran away. I was holding my little baby. My sister ran away and they found me nearby.

MS THABETHE: And then what happened after they had found you?

MS E Z CELE: They started beating me with bush knives. Lako pointed a gun at my ear and they were asking me as to where Dudu was.

MS THABETHE: What happened thereafter?

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose. Who was assaulting you at that stage, was it still this Lako Khumalo?

MS E Z CELE: Yes. Another one was Roy.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Roy Cele, one of the applicants?

MS E Z CELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what happened to your baby at the time you were assaulted?

MS E Z CELE: I was with my baby and was still looking for another child of mine whom I didn't know where she was. She had run away with my younger sister. And they started asking me as to where Dudu was. At that time Dudu had run away across the small river. They found her there. That's when they started beating her and throwing stones on her and the bush knives, they used bush knives as well to assault her.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the one who pointed Dudu out to Roy Cele and Khumalo, amongst others who formed that large group?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, one could see where they were standing across the river where Dudu was. They just asked, but they could see her.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you see, amongst others, Roy Khumalo running in the direction to where Dudu was - Roy Cele and Khumalo running towards where Dudu was across the river?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, I saw them with my eyes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Did you see how they killed Dudu Ngcobo?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, I saw. They assaulted her with bush knives and they also threw stones at her.

MS THABETHE: I would like to point out to the Committee Members that earlier on the accused, Mr Thulani Cele had disputed that fact and it's even there in the indictment. I would just like to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We have applicants here, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, the applicant. I'm indebted to you, Chair. If you could bear with me, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we shall bear with you.

MS THABETHE: My last question to you Ms Cele is, the applicants have applied for amnesty, what is your response to that?

MS E Z CELE: I wouldn't like them to be given amnesty because they are still lying, they are not telling the truth and I still think the sentence they were given in Court is a little, they should have got more than that.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions of this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

ADV DE JAGER: Can I just ask something. Were the houses burnt on that day?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, on the 26th of December.

ADV DE JAGER: Were all the huts burnt, or were any of them left?

MS E Z CELE: One house was left.

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, was Roy Cele present during the attack of Dudu Ngcobo, across the river?

MS E Z CELE: Yes, he was there. I saw him first because he is my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Molohlanye, do you have any questions to put to Ms Cele?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have a few questions to put.

Ms Cele, you're saying they came and took to the Inkangala, where they asked you questions ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They took her to the hills.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

They took you to the hills, where they asked you questions. You said, amongst the questions they asked was who told these people who killed Martin, and the next question was what political affiliation was asked and according to your evidence you say it was only Martin who was asked what political - Ernest was the only person asked what political organisation he was following. And then you said that you didn't fall under any political organisation and they didn't ask you that question. Were the questions specific to any people or were they just questions randomly?

MS E Z CELE: I wasn't asked of my political affiliation. I never heard anything about politics.

MR MOLOHLANYE: But Ms Cele, you want to tell the Committee that you didn't have any knowledge of politics or anything at that time and so did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is she saying that?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson, I withdraw my question.

So you heard when these questions were asked to Ernest, can you tell us what was his response?

MR MALAN: She already said that she couldn't remember. I specifically asked her that question.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Mr Malan.

You say after you were even punished, you went down the mountain, went down the hill and on your way you met these people carrying Dudu. Who were these people?

MS E Z CELE: The only person I saw and recognised was Thulani, the others I only saw them, but I didn't know their names.

MR MOLOHLANYE: But you said earlier in your evidence that Thulani was playing a most forward role at the hill in punishing the people. So you were still on your way down the hill, but you met Thulani going up the mountain and carrying Dudu.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that fair? Is that fair, because you know the various stages have not been separated when she was giving her evidence-in-chief. If you are not yet satisfied with her responses and you want to ascertain at which various stages what happened, you should be asking questions that will elicit those stages, so that they can be made clearer to you.

Her evidence has been basically that Thulani was the one who was prominent in questioning them whilst they were at the hills, and her evidence then later, without actually giving an indication at which stage, was that later after they had been released after they had been sjamboked, as she was going down she then saw the other group in which Thulani was with Dudu. Now you don't know how fast she was walking down the hills, or slow, and you don't know at which stage Thulani and the group left those who were at the hills to go back to the house to look for Dudu.

Now if you want to canvass that, you must ask proper questions and lay a better foundation for you to be able to get that kind of evidence.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I withdraw the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to, just ask the right question. You can find our for instance, whether Thulani, whether she saw Thulani whilst they were at the hills, leaving them, going back to the house, because her only evidence is that she later saw Thulani amongst the large group, coming with Dudu up the hills, as she was going down the hills to her house.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I'm indebted to you, Madam Chair. I hoped the witness had understood that - and can you please, Ms Cele, answer on that basis.

MS E Z CELE: I couldn't see how or when Thulani left. All I remember is that we were lying down on our stomachs, so I don't know at which stage Thulani left the hill.

CHAIRPERSON: How long did the punishment that was administered on you last, can you give an estimation?

MS E Z CELE: I think it was about 30 minutes, because they were giving us 10 lashes at a time and giving the other person a chance to give another one 10 lashes.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOLOHLANYE

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No re-examination, Madam Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cele, we thank you for having had the courage to come and give evidence before this Committee. We know how painful this is for you to have to relive the events. You may step down now.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS THABETHE: May I proceed? Thank you, Madam Chair. My next witness is Ms Happy Cele.

SKHOSAZANA HAPPY CELE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms Cele, can you tell this Committee how you are related to Amos Cele.

MS S H CELE: He is my father.

MS THABETHE: How old was he at the time of his death?

MS S H CELE: He was 79 years old.

MS THABETHE: To you knowledge, was your father an IFP member?

MS S H CELE: No, he wasn't.

MS THABETHE: Was there any political conflict in your area at Manyasene in 1989?

MS S H CELE: No, there wasn't. No-one actually knew anything about political conflicts.

MS THABETHE: On the 24th of December, there were visitors who came to your house, were you present when these visitors came?

MS S H CELE: They arrived in the evening of the 24th of December and I left on the 25th, in the morning, the following morning.

MS THABETHE: Were you present on the 26th of December?

MS S H CELE: No, I wasn't there in the morning, I only arrived in the evening.

MS THABETHE: Can you tell this Committee what happened when you arrived at your area on the 26th of December.

MS S H CELE: When I arrived at home from work, I saw many people. From the bus stop I saw a certain man from the Ngcobo family. He was also a visitor at home. They were lying down at the bus stop.

MS THABETHE: Ms Cele, can you slow down a bit for the evidence to be interpreted for the Committee Members. Just take it a bit slow.

MS S H CELE: When I asked them as to why Nana was losing strength, she only showed me or pointed at the hill and when I looked up the hill I saw many people and they were singing.

MS THABETHE: Just hold it. You may proceed with the interpretation, I was trying to slow her down.

INTERPRETER: They were singing.

MS S H CELE: When I asked Nana what happened to them, she told me that they had been taken up to the hill and they were beaten up there and I asked Nana as to where the others were and she said she didn't know because when they came back from the hill they didn't come, all of them, the same time, they came one by one. That's when I left. I went home.

On my way home I met my sister-in-law and she told me not to go home and I told her that I cannot go somewhere else, I have to go home because I have to look for other family members.

Before I arrived at home I decided to go back and look for a car to take Ernest and Nana. When I was at the bus stop, while waiting there, two kombis came. They were full of people and the people were singing. I think they were singing slogans, but at the time I didn't know that because I wasn't politically aware. I couldn't understand what they were singing about.

When they were at the bus stop they stopped there and the people got off the kombis. The first person I saw and recognised from those people was Kwazi Hlongwane. He had two five litres of petrol. He was talking to these people and he was pointing at my place, saying "there is the house where we're supposed to burn, but first we should go and meet the others who are still at the hill." When I turned ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Just hold it there.

MS S H CELE: I just turned back to hide my face, so that Kwazi couldn't recognise me or see me. He went past, he didn't see me and the people who were with him, who alighted the kombis went with Kwazi.

MS THABETHE: Why didn't you want Kwazi to see you?

MS S H CELE: I knew that Kwazi may have or might want to assault me because my family members had been assaulted. That is why I hid my face. They went past me, they went straight to the hill.

When they were going up the hill, I decided to go back home and look for the other children who were at home. I ran. I went home. When I arrived at home, I found the children and I also found Bongani Zulu, who is my brother-in-law. He was injured. His muscles were out.

I told Bongani to run away and he said to me he couldn't run away because he was injured and I said to him he must try. I got inside the house as I looked for the children. I met Nana at the gate. She said she was going to fetch her laundry from the river. I told Nana not to go because she was going to meet them, but she insisted and then she left.

I went to various houses there at home. I went also inside Bonny's house. I heard someone crying, but I couldn't see the person who was crying. The wardrobes were all down and the beds were upside down, everything was upside down.

I tried to look, I found Bonny under the bed. He was naked. He was also assaulted or sjamboked. I pleaded with him to run away. He said he couldn't because he was injured. I told him that he must try because I've already seen Kwazi, and he had two five litres of petrol and he did say to those people that they were coming to burn down the houses.

Then I tried to dress Bonny. I put on a shirt on Bonny and a towel. I didn't want them to recognise him. I wanted to dress him like a lady, so that they don't recognise him. And I told him to run away.

I took Zodwa's kid and Bonny's kid. I was seven months pregnant with twins. I took them with me to the sugar field. That's when they came, many of them. They were armed. I cannot say what type of weapons they had, but the were armed.

When they arrived at home, we were now still in the sugar cane field nearby our home. One could everything which was going on there. I could hear people talking and they were asking each other that "brother's how can you play with us?" If I think, I think there were the comrades from Madikwe asking the group from our area, they said "you had told us to come and clean this place, now where are those people?"

I could hear the doors breaking down, they were breaking down the doors, the windows. That's when they started burning the house. I could see the smoke from the sugar can field and females from across the river were shouting.

The only one that I saw and heard, it was Mrs Muandla. We call her Mkazim. She was shouting, telling them to hurry up and to burn the houses quicker and faster and she also said that after that they should come to the sugar cane field because there were people hiding in the sugar cane filed. That's when I told my brother that we should leave the sugar cane field, because also the smoke was getting heavier. We started running away towards the Khanu's place.

Bongumusa Roy Cele shouted. I could hear his voice because he is my brother, he's my father's son. And he said "there's the bitch from the family" and he said that I was trying to hide from the banana field. And it was true, I ran towards the direction of the banana field. When I arrived there, I arrived at the Khuzwayo's kraal and I found the people there, sitting inside the house and I just got inside the house, I threw Zodwa's kid. I don't know who caught the kid.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Ms Cele. Now let's come to the 28th of December. Can you tell us what you did then?

CHAIRPERSON: In relation to what, Ms Thabethe? What did she do in relation to what? We know on the 28th of December, that's when Amos Cele was killed, so what is it that you want her to give evidence on?

MS THABETHE: Okay. Before Amos Cele was killed, can you tell us what happened before then?

I'm indebted to you, Madam Chair.

MS S H CELE: On that day when they wanted to kill us we ran away, we slept at our relatives. The next day I went to the police ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to disturb you there. Ms Thabethe is asking you a question whereby you can give evidence about what happened on the 28th of December.

MS S H CELE: I thought I was getting there.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I thought you were referring to what happened on the 26th, after the 25th incident ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Sorry, Madam Chair, can I just explain. She's talking about after the 26th, that on the 27th she went - because I asked what happened before Amos Cele was killed. I wanted her to relate to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is there any relevance to that, which will lead to the killing of Amos Cele?

MS THABETHE: I think so, Madam Chair, yes.

You were still saying you went to the police, can you proceed from there.

MS S H CELE: Yes, I went to the police, I reported the matter. Also I reported about the people who were still missing from my family members, including my father and another kid who was also assaulted, Makasonge. I reported this to the police. The police took me with to my home.

When we arrived at home we found my father there. He was still sitting in the remaining rondavel, which was not burnt down. We asked my father to come with us. He refused. He said he wasn't going anywhere because he didn't have any enemies. We pleaded with him. He refused, and then we left him there.

I left with the police. I asked the police to give me a ride to my sister's place. The police took me and left me at my sister's place. As I was approaching my sisters place - one could see from my sister's place to my house or my family house, I saw the remaining rondavel being burnt down. I told my sister again that the remaining hut was now on fire.

Again I went back to the police and I told the police that they had burnt down that remaining rondavel. I didn't go back with the police to my place, I didn't have enough strength. They took my sister with them, my sister, Nokokanja.

They went home and they found that the remaining hut was burnt down and they started looking for my father. I think they looked for him for three days, they couldn't find him. And one person we didn't know gave us an idea as to where my father was. The police went and they found my father in a bush near the Madlala kraal. He was burnt.

MS THABETHE: You have indicated that he was found near the Madlala kraal, being burnt. How far was Madlala's kraal from your home?

MS S H CELE: It's very close. One can speak to someone from my place to Madlala's place. We are very close. It's not as close as in the townships, because those are the rural areas, but one can speak from one house to the other, from Madlala to my family's place, Even the area or the bush where they found my father's corpses, was closer to Madlala's crawl.

MS THABETHE: You have heard Roy Cele's evidence saying that your father together with a group of people, went to attack him at his home and that's how he got killed. My first question to you is, how far is Roy Cele's home from the Madlala's kraal, where you father was found?

MS S H CELE: It is very far. I can estimate that it is from here to, or you go past Durban Station. From my father's place to where Roy stays, or from the bush where my father was found I can say to Roy's place it's from here to Umgeni.

MS THABETHE: My next question is, could your father still walk and run as Roy has indicated to us, that they had to run after him from his house up until where he was found, near Madlala's kraal?

MS S H CELE: He couldn't walk such a distance. Besides, that area it's a steep ...

...(end of side A of tape)

MS THABETHE: ... amnesty for these acts. What is your response to that?

MS S H CELE: Even though I don't know very well about amnesty, but what I've heard so far it's that when a person asked for amnesty he tells the truth, because it is meant for people to reconcile and for people to be remorseful, and you can only do that when you tell the truth. When I was sitting down there I was listening to their evidence and I couldn't hear any truth. I don't know what type of amnesty they get. If they cannot tell the truth I can't give them that.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe. Mr Molohlanye, do you have any questions to put to Ms Cele?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, Chairperson.

Ms Cele, I'd like ask the first question and that is, how are you related to Monica?

MS S H CELE: She is my sister.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Did you see her at any time after you arrived from work?

MS S H CELE: No, I didn't.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Can I put to you that Monica Cele was still in that scenario when those people from Madikwe, and the local ones were running down the hill towards your house. Would you dispute that?

CHAIRPERSON: Let us understand what you are putting to her. What scenario are you referring to?

MR MOLOHLANYE: When those people were attacking the house, running down the hill towards her house and when she was looking for the babies and meeting Nana, and looking for some of the members of the family. What I want to put to her is that her father was still around and Monica also was still around at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Where, in the house?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, she was around the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOLOHLANYE: In page ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, have we had that answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to her.

ADV DE JAGER: When you were looking for the babies, for the children there after you've arrived, was your father still in the house? And did you see Monica there with your father, or in the vicinity of your father?

MS S H CELE: When I arrived at home, Monica and my father were not there. I was told that she had taken Makasonke to hospital because Makasonke had been assaulted or stabbed.

CHAIRPERSON: Your ...(indistinct) Mr Molohlanye, has instructions differently. What you want to put to her is that Monica and Amos Cele were in the house at the time of her arrival from work.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to her then.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I'll put it to you, Ms Cele, that your father was still at the house when those people came running down to the house.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no English interpretation)

MS S H CELE: No, Monica and my father were not there, they had left for hospital.

MR MOLOHLANYE: In page 33 of the judgment, paragraph 10, it's the evidence of Monica, your sister, she says a second group approached them and she ran away, as well as her father. Will you deny that?

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR MOLOHLANYE: At page 33, paragraph 10, six lines down from paragraph 10. It starts with an "A".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A second group approached them and she ran away, as well as her father.

MS THABETHE: Can I interject, Madam Chair. This incident refers to the stage where the girls had received 50 cuts and then thereafter that's when they ran away, looking for their brother. They found the brother in the neighbour's yard, he was stabbed, and then they took the brother to hospital, at Osindeswene.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading this from?

MS THABETHE: Paragraph 10, which my learned friend has referred to.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought he had referred to the sentence that starts with "A", second group approached them and she ran away, as well as her father.

MS THABETHE: That's exactly what I'm saying, that it's different stages, it's not the stage that she's talking about. She is talking about the stage when she arrived at home and they were not there, because after the girls were beaten they were told that the brother had been stabbed, they went there with Nana, and they took the brother to the hospital, which is what she is saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's give you an opportunity, Mr Molohlanye. What point are you making?

MR MOLOHLANYE: The point I was trying to make, Chairperson, is that Monica, her sister, was around and her father was there in the vicinity when the house was attacked and yet she's giving us information that her father was not anywhere around the area.

MR MALAN: Mr Molohlanye, will you help me, what is really the relevance in terms of the overall application and the violation that we're considering here?

MR MOLOHLANYE: The relevance in this matter is that the witness has given us in his evidence, that his father was 79 years old, therefore he could not ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, sorry, he did not give that evidence, that was put to him in cross-examination. He was asked and he said about 60, and then later it was put to him that his father was 79. Are you talking about the applicant, or are you talking about this witness now?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I'm talking about this witness.

MR MALAN: Sorry, yes, she did say 79.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So according to your sister's evidence, she ran away, as well as your father. How is that possible?

MR MALAN: Really, I mean this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I? Mr Molohlanye, we don't want to interrupt your cross-examination, you also have to bear in mind that you are cross-examining a victim. It is our duty to ensure that that cross-examination is conducted in the most decorum of manners, and we have to be compassionate to victims.

We will allow you to cross-examine as long as that cross-examination will be to issues which area relevant to questions directly affecting the evidence that your clients have tendered. Now if I recall the evidence already tendered by your clients, this is not really the evidence that was traversed by your clients, unless of course you are laying a foundation to attack the evidence of Ms Happy Cele, as being false. And if that is so, we would request you to quickly proceed to completing laying that kind of foundation, otherwise we will not allow questions for the sake of being put to witness, unless they are material to issues that we have to deal with in deciding whether to grant or refuse amnesty.

If you are laying a foundation to try and show this Committee that the evidence tendered by Ms Cele is untruthful and should not be relied upon, we will allow you, but also bear in mind that even that should be evidence that is directly fundamental to us finding whether they qualify for amnesty or not.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. The point that I was trying to make is that it was put to the witness whether her father could run, because he was pursued from his house, according to the evidence, and what I wanted to know is whether - because her sister in her own, her own sister said her father could run.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's go back to the judgment. Truly Mr Molohlanye, you are conducting the case to the best of your abilities, we understand that, but look at the evidence that is - look at the judgment. This is the judgment. This is the judgment, not of Ms Happy Cele, but it's the judgment of Monica Cele.

That being the case, the judgment is merely saying - this is now a summary of the evidence of Monica, that was given before the Presiding Judge during the criminal trial. The judgment is not saying this man could run, the judgment is merely saying, when the second group approached, she ran away, as well as her father. What does that mean?

If you run away, does it mean that you can be a, the fastest runner, or does it mean that you simply leave the place and run as fast as you can, whether you are 80 or you are 90? What are you trying to show by referring to this portion of the judgment?

MR MOLOHLANYE: The witness had said her father could not run, therefore according to the evidence that was led by Roy Cele, they pursued the people who attacked him at his place and these people were running and it was put to him whether a 79 year old person can run and then he said that he was just merely in front running. Therefore, I take the statement made by - evidence led by Roy Cele and the paragraph, the line that I took in paragraph 10, that Mr Amos Cele was able to run - rather, he was not fetched at his house, as is alleged by the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you know, that summary of facts by the judge at the criminal trial is not anything but a summary, and it's a summary of the evidence led by Monica, and it merely says Monica escaped together with her father. Obviously you can't escape unless there is some measure of running, but that does not in any way in my mind, display quite vividly the extent of the speed that was gained in each and every step taken by the late Amos Cele then.

So it wouldn't make any difference in my mind, whether he ran or what. All that I interpret this to be saying is to indicate and suggest that they escaped, not through hiding, but the escaped through running away. But as to the speed and the ability of somebody to be able to run as fast as a young man of 20, when he is being pursued, I don't think you can make anything out of this.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I will not prevent you, I think that's a matter that you can take up when you address us. When it's time for legal argument you can take this issue up.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you.

My next question will be, as you've said that Roy Cele's house was very far from yours, I'd like to know how far was Thulani's house from yours?

MS S H CELE: Very near.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOLOHLANYE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, do you need to re-examine?

MS THABETHE: No, Madam Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cele, are you in a position to give this Committee an idea of what you think might have made Roy Cele and Thulani to kill your father? Are you in a position to give us a motive? Do you know of any motive that might have made them to do this kind of an act? We have evidence that Thulani was in fact the grandson of your father and that Roy Cele was your brother.

MS S H CELE: I am not sure about Thulani, as to why he would go to such an extent of killing my father, but Roy I am certain why, or he can do that, he can kill my father, because they were children who didn't like my father because of many other incidents which occurred before and things that they've done to my father. I am not sure about Thulani, as to what caused Thulani to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: We heard evidence before that your father was a member of IFP and that sometimes meetings will be held at his house or his place, do you know anything of this sort?

MS S H CELE: No, I don't know and I've never heard anything in connection with politics that my father was involved with. We will hear about politics in the radio. We didn't have any knowledge about this, and my father was never involved.

CHAIRPERSON: To you knowledge, you don't know of any meeting which was held in his house, about IFP meetings?

MS S H CELE: No, never. Never once.

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, do you know if Roy or Thulani were members of the ANC, or any organisation which was an ANC alliance?

MS S H CELE: No, I am certain that they don't know anything about politics, it's something that they don't know and at the time when this thing happened they didn't know anything about politics. Maybe they heard about politics later.

CHAIRPERSON: You said there were conflicts between Roy and your father, were these in connection with family disputes or what?

MS S H CELE: They were family disputes, it wasn't anything that involves neighbours or any other person. They were strictly within the family.

MR MALAN: Chair, may I just for the record, put it to Ms Cele, that Thulani of course in his application for amnesty here, did not apply for the murder of Amos Cele, he in fact denies any involvement. The question was put to you whether you can think of any reason why Thulani or Roy would have killed. But just for the record, so you have knowledge, Thulani denies any involvement in that killing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Cele, for coming forward and assisting us. Thank you. Now you can step down.

Ms Thabethe and Mr Molohlanye, I notice that the time is almost half past one. Maybe this will be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment and if we can also do like we did yesterday, take a 30 minute lunch adjournment and reconvene at 2 o'clock. I hope that will be in order. I would request members of the Correctional Services, who are providing food for the applicants, to try and also accommodate us in making sure that the food is provided as quickly as possible to enable us to reconvene at 2 o'clock.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

MR MOLOHLANYE: As the Committee pleases.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we in a position to commence? Ms Thabethe, Mr Molohlanye, are you in a position to make your submissions?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is going to start? You start, Mr Molohlanye, these are your applications. We are ready to listen to your submissions.

MR MOLOHLANYE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. My submission will be divided into two parts. The first part will concern Thulani Cele and the second one will concern Roy Cele.

Starting with the first on, that is of Thulani Cele. Thulani Cele was a member of a publicly known political organisation called the ANC. He was a leader of a structure which was formed by the community, mostly ANC, in the area of Manyasene. The purpose of this structure was to maintain the existing peace, the peace that was existing in Manyasene, because around the area there were clashes between IFP and ANC, but not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The purpose of the structure was to fight against the criminal activities which was taking place in the area. I just wanted to correct you.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

This structure, which was not formally elected I would admit, but it had the motive of fighting crime - as the Honourable Chair has already stated, in the area. Coming to the issue of the actual offences, or the actual acts by Thulani Cele. Thulani Cele is applying for amnesty for the public violence and in terms of the Act, the Promotion of National Unity Act, and Reconciliation Act, Mr Thulani Cele has made a full disclosure of his participation in the acts of public violence of Manyasene.

He admitted that he administered strokes on the victims, as it is mentioned in the bundle, and Mr Thulani Cele further admitted, or made full disclosure to the killing of Dudu Ngcobo. He even mentioned that he used - according to the indictment and judgment, it was said that a big stone was thrown on Dudu, and this disclosure was made by the applicant.

Therefore, in terms of Section 20 of the Act, the act, or the acts which were committed by Thulani Cele, was having a political objective. The political objective of this act emanates from the fact that a structure under the ANC, which is a publicly political organisation, was fighting crime in the area of Manyasene, and it was decided by the community of Manyasene, which was mostly ANC, that any person found in the area committing crime or disturbing the peace which was already in existence in the area, that person will be punished. Those were the grounds on which the applicant, Mr Thulani Cele, performed the acts of public violence.

In terms of Section 2(a), this Thulani Cele, a member of a publicly known organisation, was performing the acts not towards a person whom he knew - for instance in the case of Dudu he admitted that he didn't know Dudu as a member of any political opposition party, but I believe that the Act is not only limited to a fact where a person has to be a member of an opposition political party.

An act which has been committed under, or with a political motive, with a political objective, as Mr Thulani Cele's structure, believed that whatever they were doing, they were doing it under political objectives.

Therefore, I will submit that Mr Thulani Cele be granted amnesty on these grounds because all the acts that he performed were for the political organisation to which he belonged and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you purporting, are you suggesting that he was given instructions or issued with orders to perform the act for which he is asking for amnesty? And are you also suggesting that whether an act is directed at a person who is not a political opponent of a particular organisation, that doesn't matter?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, that's what I suggest, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do you get that? I mean, are you reading the Act correctly?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I'm having Section 20, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us a reference to what you are saying, where it says that person of a particular organisation need not wage a struggle against his opponent. Where does that, where is that reflected in the ACT?

MR MOLOHLANYE: It's nowhere reflected, Your Worship, but I believe that this Act is not limited to an extent where there has to be a political opponent, taking into consideration the preamble of the ACT.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, we are making a determination in terms of Section 20(1)(2) and (3) of the Act. We are very aware of the preamble of the Act. But you will remember that this Amnesty Committee has as its guideline that particular section, in terms of which it has to be satisfied whether an applicant must be given amnesty or not.

Now we are interested in you giving us argument and referring us to specific portions of Section 20, and only Section 20, and not the preamble of the Act.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. I will go ahead.

"In terms of (f) of - in terms of Section 20(2)(f), any person referred to in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of the same section, on reasonable grounds believes that he or she was acting in the course or scope of his or her duties within the scope his or her express or implied authority."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are these people employees of a particular organisation?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No, they are not, but they are members of the political organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you not reading the wrong section?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No, they're saying in terms of (b), (c) and (d). And (d) reads thus

"An employee or a member of a publicly known organisation or liberation ..."

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but it continues to say

"... directed against"

You could be a member, but then there's a further qualification. Being a member only is not enough, it should be committed by a person directing his act against somebody. (d):

"... directed against the State or any former State or any publicly known political organisation or liberation movement."

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson and Honourable Members. I say this as a publicly politically known organisation.

ADV DE JAGER: We agree with you there.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes. I'm not too sure whether this Committee will allow me, but I don't think that it's already been stated that nothing only but the sections in Section 20, I should only ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not saying that. I mean you have to tell us in terms of Section 20(2), where do you see your applicant fitting within the provision of Section 2(a) up to (f)? Now you've referred us to Section 20(2)(d), which obviously presents us with a little difficulty in that you have conceded that Dudu was not, to the applicant's knowledge, a member of a particular organisation. So if the applicant acted against her, he was directing his action against which member of which organisation? Because that section requires you to direct your action against a person who is known to be your opponent or to belong to an organisation that is publicly known to be an opponent of the ANC. That is where your difficulty lies, isn't it?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. Yes, that's where my difficulty lies. Mostly on the basis that the acts which were committed by the applicant, taking into account that this applicant was not alone at the time of the commitment of this act, there was a group of about 600 people there whom I think even most of them thought that they were acting under a political objective, a political objective which was to maintain peace and tranquillity and maintain - and reduce crime in the area. Therefore, if an act, a person is reducing crime in the area under a political organisation, fighting a criminal for example, that person is acting under a political objective. Because at the time of the offence what is on his mind is only that this person is fighting or is disturbing what my political organisation wanted to achieve at this time.

I therefore submit that on those basis', taking into account the period at which these acts occurred, that people - although we'll understand that the people took the law into their own hands, but the political scenario at that time made people to take the law into their own hands, hoping that what they're doing, they're doing under political, or under the political umbrella ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can't submit to us in terms of hoping, you've got to confine your submission to the evidence led before us. Now what evidence is there that the applicant directed his action against a person that he reasonably believed to have belonged to a person that was perceived by the members of his community, who you claim to have been ANC, against Dudu? I mean, to which political party did they think Dudu belonged to? You've conceded already that the evidence before us that it was not known to which political organisation Dudu belonged. Now in terms of the Act, you've got to as a member of a political organisation, direct your action against a person that you reasonable believe to be a political opponent of your organisation.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I therefore proceed on those grounds in terms of Section 20(3), which - the criteria which is used after it has been, after Section 2 has been applied, the motive of the person who committed the offence, clearly in this matter the motive was not only to kill Dudu for no apparent reason. The evidence was led that Dudu came into the area with other members from Umlazi. They came into the area demanding a hand that was missing from her brother.

And secondly, (b), the context in which this act, or omission was committed, it was part of a political uprising, disturbance or event, in reaction thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: You will recall - without really interfering your submissions, the evidence that is before us is crystal that there was no disturbance at Manyasene. That is the evidence that we are sitting with.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I understand, Your Worship. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So how can you seek reliance on that particular section, when the evidence, your evidence, the evidence that you led before us, is against you on that part?

MR MOLOHLANYE: It's not only an uprising or a disturbance, an event ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which event had taken place at Manyasene? The evidence that we have is that everything was quiet, it was the only area which had not been afflicted by any political turmoil. This is the evidence of all the parties, both the applicants and the objectors have led that kind of evidence. Now where would you seek reliance with regard to that aspect of your submission, that there was an event?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. The event that I'm referring to, according to the evidence that was given by the applicants - because here I'm talking about Thulani Cele, was that the people came from Umlazi and the community of Manyasene thought that was a political, that will maybe lead to a political instability in the area. So as a structure, as a political organisation, the ANC, they took that very seriously, to the extent that these people were sentenced and sjamboked.

CHAIRPERSON: You must always have in mind that no evidence at all was led about the ANC. This is a structure, an informal structure which was formed of Manyasene, in reaction to the criminal activity which was prevalent in the area and not in reaction to any political opposition that the community was experiencing. This is in reaction to a criminal activity by a gang of criminals, which gang, there is no evidence to effect that that gang was associated or perceived to have been in collaboration with any political organisation. So you must bear that in mind as you present your argument.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I'll go to paragraph (d) of the same (3). It ...(indistinct) the object and the objective of the act. The objective of this act, as I said earlier, by the applicant, was to maintain the peace and tranquillity in the area. I think that this was the most thing that they wanted, because his objective was not only to assault Dudu for no, or any other person from Amos Cele's house, but a decision by the community of about 600 people sat down and discussed the matter and they saw it fit and proper to punish these people, as a community let by a structure under the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Molohlanye, is it not correct that the evidence before us is that the community did not decide, the structure decided? The community could ask questions, but afterwards the structure went aside, they made the decision, they even decided the number of lashes.

MR MOLOHLANYE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you must bear in mind how that structure came into being and the reason why it came into being. It wasn't for purposes of achieving any political objective, it was to curb the crime which was becoming prevalent in the area. The purpose for which the structure was established was not so politically motivated as you would like us to believe. The evidence is against you on that part. In fact you have referred us to (d). You actually fall short of saying that that subsection requires you to have directed your action at a political opponent, which political opponent, by your concession, you did not have because Dudu Ngcobo was not a known political opponent.

MR MOLOHLANYE: It continues

"... a State property or person and/or against private property."

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, precisely, but it must be directed against - now in the case of a member of a political organisation, it must be directed at a political opponent of that member of that particular organisation. In the case of the State, it must be directed against not a private person, but a public person as you see, or against private property or individuals, but obviously it's in context all the time, bearing in mind (2) 2 from (a) to (f). This is merely a criteria.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

To round up my submission, Chairperson, I believe that Mr Thulani Cele, when it comes to the first public violence, that the acts which were committed were committed not only by himself or on any personal grounds or any personal hatred against those people who were lashed, but it was a decision taken at a public hearing of the Manyasene people. Therefore, the act of public violence was not only an act ...(indistinct) Cele, taken on his own or on a personal revenge against those people.

When it comes to the assault ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, may I just take you back to this. You again refer to a public hearing. The evidence is that people were allowed to ask questions, but there was no hearing or decision by the community. I mean am I mistaken or am I forgetting some of the evidence?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. According to my notes, it's that the people of Manyasene were allowed to ask questions, they asked questions and the people were convicted and then the committee, a number of the members of the committee went aside to decide on a sentence. They decided on the sentence only, but the people of Manyasene had already decided that these people should be punished. On the question of how many lashes, the committee, the structure decided on that.

MR MALAN: Really, I have no note or recollection that any evidence was led that the people or that public meeting came to any decision, they could ask questions, then the structure went aside, they discussed, they decided that the people will be punished and they decided the number of lashes. I mean it's very important that - but we can refer to the record if we need to on this.

On the same point, you in passing mentioned that Thulani Cele did not do it ...(end of side A of tape)

... by Thulani himself, that he believed that he was being attacked, that this was in retaliation to a threat against him. It was sort of a pre-emptive strike to protect him and his life. The rumours - I mean he so often referred to that. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Honourable Member. Thulani Cele said the people - he thought the people were going to attack him personally. And if Thulani Cele had any motive or was prepared to go, taking into account a number of people who came to attack his house, only a few people, and there was a public gathering of about 600 people, who went along with the decision that the people should be punished. Thulani might have taken a decision on his own at his own place and said these people, they are only four people from Umlazi, then there was no need for him to call on 600 people if he was ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, but let continue to the next step. Who took the decision that they should be killed? Was the 600 people or was that only the two institutions, or a few members of the two institutions?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I admit to that, Honourable Member. I'll also like to comment on that, that the people who came were members of the community from Madikwe, which was one of the areas at Inanda, where there already has been ANC and IFP clashes or fights and therefore as they're coming to Manyasene area, which according to the evidence that was led, Manyasene had not experienced any political ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: So they're now carrying the clashes in other areas into this peaceful area?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, that's what I want to say, that they were influenced by the people whom they believed had a better knowledge of politics than they did in Manyasene, because according to the evidence the people of Madikwe said "you mustn't do that, you mustn't let the enemy go because they will come back and retaliate". That is when it was decided that they should be killed.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct)

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you. I'd like to continue to the next act of assault on Dudu Ngcobo, the killing of Dudu Ngcobo that is.

I'd like to submit here that Thulani Cele, in terms of the Act, made a full disclosure of his participation in the assault of Dudu Ngcobo, which ultimately led to her death. Therefore, in terms of the Act, where a person makes a full disclosure and that person is a member of a political, or a publicly known political organisation, that person or the act which he committed - as I stated earlier that he had in mind a political view, although it might differ from our own perspective of a political view at this time, but what Thulani Cele and the rest of the other people were involved in at the time, they believed that they were doing this under a political umbrella. And I still hold that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let me correct you again there. At all material times Thulani believed that the people had come there to launch retaliatory attacks against him because of Martin's death. That is the evidence before us. You seem to fall short of referring to that evidence, which I think is critical in a way with regard to his motive.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

In closing my submission, I therefore would plead with the Committee to grant the amnesty as it has been applied for here, on the grounds that these people were under a political organisation and they thought that Thulani, to be precise, acted under a political ... Although those people came and attacked him and he was involved in the same - like he was the cause of the whole problem, but at the ultimate end all the acts performed there were performed under a political umbrella like they say they thought they were acting under a political objective. That's my submission with regards to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let me understand you again. They were acting under a political umbrella, what do you mean? Are you saying they were acting under orders, or what are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that they were acting under political orders?

MR MOLOHLANYE: As I was saying - thank you, Chairperson. I was saying they thought they were acting under a political umbrella. According to them they were members of the ANC, and according to what the ANC or the rules of the ANC, the decisions, that's how they were trying to comply with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No evidence has been given to us with regard to ANC rules pertaining to such killings. No such evidence has been led before me. How can you seek reliance on that? You haven't submitted that kind of evidence. Or am I forgetting something? I don't think - that evidence has not been led before us.

MR MOLOHLANYE: According to Roy Cele's evidence, which I will bring up in this matter, it was stated that when he was asked or when a question was put to him he said these people were punished because they did not follow the normal order, or the rules of the structure which was formed there. The structure as it was formed, was formed by members of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Sir, the structure was formed by members of Manyasene. Now you also have just conceded that the - we have Amos Cele, who was the member of the IFP. The structure was formed by the community at Manyasene, in reaction to the prevalence of crime which was taking place at that time. It was not because of any political motivation that that structure came into being.

There was however, some co-operation with ANC structures like the Inkangala Youth League and the comrades of Amatikwene. It is not correct that the evidence as we have it, indicates that the structure was an ANC structure, or it was established particularly and pertinently because of political reasons. The reasons for the establishment were criminal. Its purpose was one and one only, to curb crime that had taken that particular area by its neck. That's the reason why that structure was formed.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson. That will be my submission for Mr ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair and Honourable Members of the Committee.

My submissions are that we argue that the applicants not be granted amnesty, on the basis that they have failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 20 of the Act, in that their act was not political and also they have failed to make full disclosure with regard tot he offences that they have applied for.

With regard to Thulani Cele, he has applied for public violence and the murder of Dudu Ngcobo. On the offence of public violence it is my submission, Madam Chair, that when he was asked about the motive as to why for example, the ladies were beaten at the hill, he answered that they were beaten because they were misbehaving at the proceedings at the hill during the questioning and clearly there's no political motive there.

Further, with regard to the public violence, he claimed that when they came to collect the people at the house before they were taken to the hill, the ladies had voluntarily joined them. And we have heard the evidence from the two victims, that they were forced up the hill and they were given lashes there. And I would argue that the Committee accepts the victims' argument on that.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact that aspect of evidence was not challenged at all.

MS THABETHE: Certainly, Madam Chair.

With regard to the offences of the murder of Dudu Ngcobo, besides the fact that Dudu Ngcobo did not belong to any political organisation as the applicants have given us evidence to, I would argue that Thulani Cele did not make full disclosure as to how the victim was killed. I am saying this because inasmuch as he admitted to having stoned the victim, or the deceased, I specifically asked him as to whether he had any knowledge of the fact that he was bushed, or bush knives were used to kill her. He answered that no bush knives were used.

I further wanted clarity, I asked him whether he is saying that he did not bush knife her himself, is he saying that maybe somebody else did the bush-knifing. He said nothing like that happened. So I would argue that there was no full disclosure, he did not disclose how Dudu Ngcobo was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: But do you have any evidence to the contrary?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Madam Chair, I referred you to the indictment, which specifically spells out that she was bush-knifed.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a post-mortem?

MS THABETHE: There isn't a post-mortem, but I've got a report from the police record which confirms this. I can hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you must. Our attention was not specifically drawn onto that. We can't rely on the indictment as it stands, we can only rely on the post-mortem report because it will form part of the objective facts.

MS THABETHE: Actually, Madam Chair, if you can bear with me, the post-mortem report is on the bundle, I just need to find it. Please bear with me.

ADV DE JAGER: Page 110.

MS THABETHE: 110, yes.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Was it his evidence, Ms Thabethe, that he was present during the assault on the deceased throughout?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Madam Chair, that was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't also his evidence that people did use bush knives, but the he personally did not use a bush knife?

MS THABETHE: I specifically, Madam Chair, asked that question and he said "no bush knives were used". I specifically asked him whether is he saying that he did not use any bush knife, but maybe somebody else did and he said he never used any bush knife.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's quite clear from the post-mortem on page 111, that two incised wounds measuring 0.5cm each on her right chest were found to have penetrated the muscles.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. May I proceed?

On the political motive, Madam Chair, I would argue that there was no political objective, or the act of killing Dudu Ngcobo was not associated with any political motive, on the basis that, (1) she did not belong to any organisation, or political organisation, (2) when the applicant was asked about the reasons for killing Dudu Ngcobo, he answered that it was because she had brought people who were unknown into the area and who apparently were there to avenge him for the killing of Martin Ngcobo's death. I don't find any political insinuation into that. I find that very personal. And in actual fact we can even interpret that he was trying to defend himself against such avenge, which is not political at all.

CHAIRPERSON: One obviously has to take note of the fact that Martin Ngcobo was personally known to the Thulani Cele.

MS THABETHE: Precisely, Madam Chair.

I would argue further, Madam Chair, that the act of killing Dudu Ngcobo was very personal, in that on the 25th of December, Thulani has given evidence to the fact that he invited his friends to guard, to help him guard against the people who had come to Amos Cele's house. He did not speak about any comrades, or he did not suggest that maybe he had gone to report the matter to the ANC and maybe ANC members were sent to help him guard the house, he talks about the fact that he called his friends to help him to guard the house, which suggests that this was indeed a personal issue rather than a political issue.

With regard, Madam Chair, to - before I come to Roy Cele, Madam Chair, my prayer therefore with regard to Thulani Cele's application, is that his amnesty be refused, on the basis of what I've just argued.

With regard to the application of Roy Cele, Madam Chair, I would like to oppose, or I would like to argue that amnesty not be granted on the following basis.

With regard to the offence of the assault on Dudu Ngcobo, he was also asked as to the reasons why he had assaulted Dudu Ngcobo, and like the applicant he said because she had invited people into the area, who had come to disturb peace in the area. I don't find, with due respect, anything political about that, more especially taking into consideration the reason why these people came into the area.

They had come into the area because their brother had died and upon discovering that his hand and his arm were not there, they came into the area to find out what had happened to the other body parts, which I think is quite normal and it should be expected from a member of a family who is concerned.

Secondly, Madam Chair, I would argue that there was - with regard to the killing of Amos Cele, which is the second offence that Roy Cele has applied for, I would argue that the Committee accepts the victims' version of how Amos Cele was killed, as opposed to the version of Roy Cele. By this I mean that the Committee should accept that Amos Cele was attacked in his house, taken tot he nearest bush from his house, as opposed to what the applicant had stated, that he had been chased for such a long distance and he was actually killed next to his house.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we have direct evidence from the objectors with regard to how Amos Cele was killed?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, we have evidence from Happy Cele, saying that she saw - immediately after they had left with the police, she saw the house burning.

CHAIRPERSON: But there is no direct evidence on how Amos Cele was killed, from the evidence led by Happy Cele.

ADV DE JAGER: That seems to be on the 26th still, and according to the evidence he was killed on the 28th. Happy gave evidence about what happened on the 26th.

MS THABETHE: I don't know, but I stand to be corrected, the evidence from Happy Cele says that on the 26th, this is when the incident of the attack happened, and she left and she slept at her sister's house and then thereafter she went and reported the matter to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We accept that, but now there is no direct evidence from Happy Cele, of how Amos Cele was killed.

MS THABETHE: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So I don't think you can take the matter any further than that.

MS THABETHE: I agree, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would argue though that the suggested version from the judgment be taken rather than Roy Cele's evidence, because it is very likely that from what, from the instructions that I got, that Amos Cele was taken from the house, or from what I read in the judgment he was taken out of his house and killed in the nearest bush, as opposed to the fact that he participated in attacking Roy Cele at his house, which is very, very far away from the bush where he was found. I would argue that the probable version should be that he was taken from his house, killed in the nearest bush from his house, rather than the version that he participated in the attack of Roy Cele, chased fro quite a number of kilometres, to be killed nearer to his house. I would argue that the Committee members not accept his version as being true, as to how Amos Cele died.

Further than that, Madam Chair, the applicant seems to suggest that when he shot at the person who the following day was found to be Amos Cele, he did not know who he was shooting at. Actually when he was asked the question as to the reason for shooting this person, he said that it was to defend himself against the attack. And for that reason there is no political motive in that killing, except to say that he wanted to defend himself from the people who were attacking him.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't his evidence also that he, a thought did cross his mind that the attackers might have been the ones that he had allowed to live after sjamboking them?

MS THABETHE: Even if so, Madam Chair, still it wouldn't make the act political, because he was merely defending himself against the said attackers. So still it wouldn't make the act political anyway. That is my submission, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, based on those facts, that there was no full disclosure and that the truth was not told and also this seems to be a family conflict more than a political conflict, I would submit that the amnesty be refused on both applications. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to the fact that, from the evidence of Mr Roy Cele, the person that he shot at was unknown, was never identified by him and up to now he cannot say who that person is? What sayest thou to that kind of evidence?

MS THABETHE: Madam Chair, I would argue that that makes the matters even worse, because then he would be denying guilt to the fact that he is the one who killed Amos Cele. I think still the consequences of his application would not change, in that he would be denying the fact ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Apart from that, this man that he shot at could be an ordinary criminal who had nothing to do with politics? He doesn't know who he shot, so it might have been Piet or Albert or whoever, he wouldn't know.

MS THABETHE: Precisely, Honourable Member.

CHAIRPERSON: No evidence was led was it, Mr Thabethe, that this was the only incident that happened during that time to have made him think that the person that was later identified to be Amos Cele, could be the same person that he thinks he killed? Because he never stopped for a second to even look at the person that he had shot at, he never stopped for a second to even look at the person that had been shot, whether that person had died. It's also possible that the person that he shot at, stood up later and recovered somewhere, is that not probable?

MS THABETHE: It is probable, Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: I think, Ms Thabethe, that my recollection is that he said that the reason why he believed that to be Amos Cele, was the fact that only one body was found, which was reported to him and no other body in that area. And that's the basis of his deduction, and he was quite happy that he shot, did indeed hit the person he shot at. So we need to bear that in mind.

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure, I stand to be correct, Honourable Member of the Committee, but he said it was at night, he fired a shot, Bongani Khumalo also fired a shot. We're not even sure whether the shot that he fired actually did kill anyone or injure anyone.

MR MALAN: No, I'm not disputing that. But the point is, he said he believed that he shot, did hit and he believed that to have been Amos Cele, because of the fact that that was the only body discovered the next day. Although he wasn't present when the body was discovered, it was simply reported to him, on his evidence.

MS THABETHE: And of course I guess the Honourable Members of the Committee have to take into consideration that when the body was taken to the doctor for the post-mortem, from the judgment it's clear that the body was burnt so much that it was not even clear whether there were shots fired on him and any stab wounds on him. So the evidence which is clear is that the body was burnt, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence is that there was a body discovered and whether it was the same person he might have fatally shot at, it is something that we are unable to deduct from the facts before us.

MS THABETHE: Precisely, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye, do you have any reply?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No reply, Madam Chair.

NO REPLY BY MR MOLOHLANYE

MR MALAN: I'm not sure that we had argument from Mr Molohlanye on Roy Cele.

MS THABETHE: We did, Honourable Member of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think ...

MR MALAN: My apologies then, I've lost myself somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: My colleague is a little lost now. We did have argument on Roy Cele?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: "No, yes", what is it?

MS THABETHE: As I started I started my submission is divided into two parts. The first part ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It started with Thulani and then Ms Thabethe had her chance to argue and she went through to arguing about Roy too, but the presentation of Molohlanye did not present the argument for Roy Cele.

MS THABETHE: I'm indebted to you, Honourable Member.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry for that, Mr Molohlanye, I wasn't aware, I thought you were arguing. You had mentioned that your submission was divided into two parts and I thought you had dealt with the first part and then followed your submission by the second part.

MR MOLOHLANYE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson.

My second part of the submission is that of Roy Cele, application for Roy Cele. That is the public violence, the assault on Dudu Ngcobo and the murder of Mzimbene Amos Cele.

On the acts of public violence, as I've stated with Thulani Cele's submission, that these acts were committed by a member of a political organisation, who was acting in concert with other members of the political organisation to which he belonged. And when it comes to - and the objective was to maintain or to curb crime in the area.

On the issue of assault on Dudu ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a political objective? Can we take it as common cause that that's a political objective?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Can you ...

CHAIRPERSON: When a structure is formed to curb crime in the area, in an area where in other areas there were ANC structures and in this particular area some kind of an informal structure is formed, specifically to curb crime in the area, would you say that's a political objective?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, I would say so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MOLOHLANYE: On the grounds that - in terms of political organisation, the purpose of political organisation entails a number of reasons, or a number of objectives. Amongst others, the political organisation, any political organisation will like to keep crime low at any of its areas where it ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: It's not directed against a political opponent, it's directed against criminals. And then you fail to meet the requirements of Section 20(2), which defines the categories of applicants. Because the category of applicants referred to is political people acting against another political organisation, or the employee of a political organisation, or the State. Because it must be committed by - and it starts off

"... committed by a person falling in one of the categories"

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Honourable Member.

I'd like to make an example in that submission, that in other organisations, as we heard in the media that some of the organisation members committed robberies as a political objective ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that, but that's not what we are dealing with. And they would prefer to call themselves as repossessing rather than robbing. We are familiar with that. The purpose of establishing this informal structure, from the evidence led before us, was to curb crime, crime which was taking place at Manyasene only, crime which was merely perpetuated by criminals, crime which was not committed by people who were undermining the ANC.

These were acts of criminals and they were not aimed at the ANC, as a community of Manyasene. These were criminal acts aimed at the community at large. As such an informal structure was formed.

We are quite familiar with the fact that the ANC Youth League and other ANC structures bearing the name ANC, came up in reaction to some of the criminal activities which became prevalent in different areas. In this case there was no ANC formation, this was an informal structure. I don't know how I'm supposed to really emphasise my comprehension of this particular aspect of evidence.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to page 166, paragraph 20, of the Honourable Judge McCall.

MS THABETHE: 116?

MR MOLOHLANYE: 116, my apologies. Paragraph 20, where it starts with - I'll start at paragraph 10, just three lines after paragraph 10

"On the hand, accused numbers 1, 2 and 4 testified that they were at the time members and supporters of the ANC, and as such active so-called comrades in the area. Accused number 1 also says that the deceased was an Inkatha supporter. Although the children of the deceased deny this, the evidence of Ngcobo and Zulu(?) certainly shows that the killing was an ANC killing. It is suggested by certain of the accused and the children of the deceased, that ill feeling was purely on an ...(indistinct) basis and not on a political basis. At the end of the day it seems to us however, that the probable difficulty was a political one and the ANC supporters as such were responsible for the killing of the deceased as an Inkatha supporter."

I submit that the acts by the applicant was political, relying on the judgment by the Honourable ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We don't - we can't rely on the judgment. No such evidence was led before this Committee. We can only rely on the evidence adduced before us. Now you have to rely on the evidence that you were responsible to have led before this Committee.

MR MALAN: Mr Molohlanye, I think in any event if you want to rely on the judgment you should look at the full judgment and if you'd read the following paragraph starting with "apart from anyone else". It's clear the whole summary that the judge says the essential players were two sections of a family. And it talks about the rejected son, and that's the essence of his finding. What you said, indeed in terms of the possible political and what was adduced, the judge did make comment on that, but he proceeds to say

"The essential players on the matter were the family called Cele and the family called Ngcobo."

MR MOLOHLANYE: I stand to be corrected, Honourable Member, but I think when he meant essential players in the killing by the ANC supporters, or on Inkatha members, the essential players were the Cele, the family Cele - were members of the Cele family. That's how I understand it.

MR MALAN: You may proceed.

MR MOLOHLANYE: That will be the end of my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Does your submission address the assault on Dudu Ngcobo and the killing of Amos Cele, which are the two offences for which Mr Roy Cele seeks amnesty?

MR MOLOHLANYE: My apologies. I thought I've finished with this. That will include, Honourable Chairperson, the assault on Dudu Ngcobo, as well as the murder of Mzimbene Amos Cele. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thabethe, I know you've already presented your argument in respect of both applicants, however, if you wish to reply, because we actually went ahead before Mr Molohlanye could conclude his presentation which was divided into two parts, we allowed to present your argument in respect of both applications. If you do wish to reply we will afford you that opportunity to reply, in view of the fact that you had already presented your argument in respect of both applications. If you don't, we will then conclude these applications.

MS THABETHE IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can just emphasise the fact that on the evidence that the applicant gave to the Committee Members, he was asked the reason why Amos Cele was killed. He did not suggest anything about the fact that it was political or the fact that Amos Cele was an IFP member. I won't repeat the reasons that he gave.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molohlanye and Ms Thabethe, this Committee would like to express its gratitude for your assistance in assisting it to come a just and equitable consideration of the matter. We will reserve our judgment in respect of the two applications. We hope to be able to pronounce our decision by the end of the week, which we contemplate to be some time on Thursday or Friday. The applicants will be duly informed through their legal representative, Mr Molohlanye, about the outcome of their applications.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

MR MOLOHLANYE: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that Mr Molohlanye, you will be with us for quite some time, so we will be able to pronounce our decision in an open sitting like this, either on Thursday or Friday, and we hope that you will then be in a position to convey the decision to your respective clients. Thank you very much.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, Chairperson.