Amnesty Hearings

GRATINA NINELA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, Mrs Ninela is ready to be examined.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you any questions to put to her?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mrs Ninela, the address which you gave to the Committee where you stay at the moment, at kwaNcolosi, is that also the house where you lived in 1987 and 1988?

MRS NINELA: Most of the time I was at work. I was at home only on weekends and that was fortnightly.

CHAIRPERSON: But that was your house? That's the question.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: You told the Committee that Blessing Ninela lived with you while he was at school. Was it at that particular house?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: After he left school, did he go and live somewhere else?

MRS NINELA: He sometimes lived with his brother at kwaMakutha.

MR VISSER: Didn't he live at a house in Inanda?

MRS NINELA: That happened after there was a collision between the Zulus and Xhosas or Mpondos, something of that sort at kwaMakutha.

MR VISSER: Can you remember when that was?

MRS NINELA: 1986, if I can remember well.

MR VISSER: Could it have been in 1988? 1987?

MRS NINELA: Yes, as far as 1987.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MRS NINELA: And sometime in 1987 I asked him to stay with the sisters at Ncolosi because there was a threatening situation at the place that time.

MR VISSER: What was that threatening situation?

MRS NINELA: There were some people who used to threaten to do something. Sometimes they just said they wanted to kill everybody at the house. That I heard it with my ears.

MR VISSER: Yes. Were the police after Blessing Ninela during 1987 or 1988?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR VISSER: Was Blessing a fugitive from the police during 1987 and 1988?

MRS NINELA: I'm not really sure about that.

MR VISSER: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether the police were looking for him?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether the police were looking for him?

MRS NINELA: I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know.

MR VISSER: Yes. When you stated in your statement in bundle 2 at page 56 in the 4th paragraph that,

"Blessing was forced to leave the kwaMakutha area"

actually you said "forced to flee the area", why was that?

MRS NINELA: There was a collision between the two nations, that was Zulu and Mpondos, there was a fight there, so he had to flee to this house at Inanda.

MR VISSER: Yes. Wasn't it because there was fighting going on between Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC supporters?

MRS NINELA: I haven't got that idea. What was reported was that the Zulus were fighting with Mpondos.

MR VISSER: And something you didn't tell us in your evidence but which you said in your statement at page 56 is that you actually obtained the house in Inanda from an Indian family. Mr Chairman, I'm referring to the 4th paragraph.

MRS NINELA: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: On page 56.

MR VISSER: On page 56. And you stated that it was because of the fighting and because the Inanda dam was going to flood the area where you lived.

MRS NINELA: Yes, there was that the dam would be built, the dam wasn't there at that moment, it wasn't built as yet and we were told that the dam was going to be built and some of the people of the place were refusing to move for the dam to be built and I understand the people who came to report that said if at all you don't want to move, you must prepare a boat for which you will float on the water when the dam is finished and we were not told who was to move, who was not going to move, so I was worried. What would happen if I had to move, where would I go? I was just looking for accommodation where I could move to before I was, I had to be drowned in that water.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MRS NINELA: Because I didn't know where to go to.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR VISSER: I take it that the dam was never built, because you're still living there where you lived all the time?

MRS NINELA: It is existing now.

MR VISSER: Yes, but the point is this, in your statement you said Blessing used to stay at the house, that is the house in Inanda, with some of his friends, is that correct?

MRS NINELA: Yes, before I asked him to go and look after the sisters at night after work, he used to stay there, since he left kwaMakutha where he used to stay before.

MR VISSER: Do you know a person by the name of Kunene?

MRS NINELA: I know him now, I didn't know him. In other words, I didn't know anybody of those people whom he was living with.

MR VISSER: Alright. Would you concede that when he says in Exhibit C that Blessing asked him to go and, or invited him to go and live with him in the house in Inanda that he went there and lived with Blessing Ninela.

MRS NINELA: Who's that?

MR VISSER: We're talking about Sefiso Simpiwhe Kunene.

MRS NINELA: I cannot say yes or no, because as I said, I didn't know those people.

MR VISSER: Yes, but would you accept when he says so, that it is true? If you don't know, you've got to concede that it might be true, not so?

MRS NINELA: If he says so.

MR VISSER: Yes, and he does. He says so in Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: He may be telling an untruth.

MR VISSER: He may be telling an untruth.

CHAIRPERSON: All she can say is that she knows nothing about it.

MR VISSER: Yes. Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't get a concession from her that that is the truth.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now, he said in his statement that there were MK exiles that were accommodated in that house. Do you know anything about that?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR VISSER: He says that...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is he coming to give evidence?

MR VISSER: That's what we're told. Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who, this man Kunene?

MS GABRIEL: That's not what we were told this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon.

MS GABRIEL: That's not what we were told this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: You know I don't want to go around canvassing issues relating to witnesses who are not going to be giving evidence.

MR VISSER: Apart from that Chairperson, we would submit that it is relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Confine your questions to ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm virtually through with this issue, Chairperson. And I just want to place on record that he gave evidence to say that the police found weapons and a printing press and documents in that house. You would know nothing about that?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR VISSER: You would know nothing about that?

MRS NINELA: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now I'm told, Mr Chairman, that Mr Sebelo Ngobese is one person that will come and give evidence and he gave the same evidence in his statement Chairperson, that is at page 63 of bundle 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it. Yes.

MR VISSER: He says that a person by the name of Ricky Thelande pointed out Blessing's house in Inanda, where he had been staying with 4 guerillas. At the house the police discovered the printing equipment used by myself, Sefiso and Kevin. They also found some AK47s left by the exiles. You would know nothing about that?

MRS NINELA: I don't know about that, I only heard from the neighbours that there were weapons that were found outside the house, they were buried outside the house.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman it's not part of the cross-examination but while we're at page 63 of bundle 2, may I just explain my suggestion during the evidence in chief of Mr du Preez, that Blessing might have been detained in terms of the emergency regulations. Where I saw it, Mr Chairman, is at this page and you will see in the following, the second following paragraph starting with "Sefiso, who had been injured in Chesterville was staying with me in Pietermaritzburg to be nursed.

It goes on and skipping one sentence, two sentences, he says:

"My brother, Blessing, was already in detention under the state of emergency."

That's where I got it from but apparently there are two Blessings, Mr Chairman, which I didn't realise at the time, so I just wanted to explain that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Alright.

MR VISSER: Now, can I ask you this, a limpet mine, do you know what that is used for?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR VISSER: You really don't know that a limpet mine is a bomb that kills people and damages property?

MRS NINELA: I have only heard recently but at that moment I didn't know anything about that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MRS NINELA: Even now, I don't know what it looks like. I've just heard about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you - well, let me ask you this. Do you know that a bomb is supposed to damage property and kill people?

MRS NINELA: I know.

MR VISSER: Yes. Do you know that at some stage Mr Blessing Ninela, your son, was in possession of a limpet mine?

MRS NINELA: I am told about that.

MR VISSER: Yes. And do you know that one of the Bhengu brothers died as a result? He blew himself up. Do you know about that?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the reference is bundle 1 page 60 where Senzo says that they received the limpet mine from Blessing Ninela. A further reference, Mr Chairman, is in Exhibit B, these pages are not paginated unfortunately, but somewhere towards, I've paginated mine, it's 25, page 25 of Exhibit B, there's a statement by Humphrey Senzo Bhengu and at page 27 as I've marked it, it's page 3 of his statement, basically the same evidence is repeated. Did you know that your son, Blessing Ninela, was training people in the use of limpet mines?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR VISSER: Right. You say you went to a police station at C R Swart and you were told by somebody that Blessing was suspected of being a member of MK?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Was this a uniform police or a plain clothed?

MRS NINELA: Yes, he was uniformed.

MR VISSER: He was in uniform?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. Right. Just incidentally who is the person that you refer to, Mhloti?

MRS NINELA: What I know is that Mr Mhloti, that is all, I can't say anything more than that.

MR VISSER: Was he attached to the TRC?

MRS NINELA: I think so, I'm not sure.

MR VISSER: And he showed you the statements of du Preez and Wasserman, I'm sorry of Taylor?

MRS NINELA: No, no. He never showed us a statement.

MR VISSER: He just told you what was...(intervention)

MRS NINELA: Mr Richard Lister gave me a statement from Mr Taylor about Blessing's death.

MR VISSER: Right, but he told you what Taylor said?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR VISSER: He told you what Taylor said in his amnesty application so that you knew for the first time then that your son had been killed?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. And if Taylor had not, and Wasserman and du Preez had not applied for amnesty you would never have known what would have happened to your son?

MRS NINELA: No, it was very hard for me to know.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now what do you expect from them to tell you more than that? You say that they didn't make a full disclosure, what more do you want? They came forward and they told the world that they killed your son.

MRS NINELA: I wanted to know what the family, the Ninela family, what have they done to them, he stated clearly that they hid the body away so that the family couldn't find it. Why?

MR VISSER: To protect themselves.

MRS NINELA: What have we done?

MR VISSER: No, you've done nothing. It was to protect themselves, Mr Ninela, because they murdered him and they knew that they did not have the right to kill him the way they did. That's why they've applied for amnesty.

MRS NINELA: I don't think that is the right reason, because what they did, they knew they were doing a lawful thing.

MR VISSER: Unlawful thing.

MRS NINELA: If at all it was unlawful, why did they do it unlawfully?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just going to stop this debate at this stage. We are covering ground. Will you, Ms Gabriel ...

MR VISSER: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to be arguing here. The evidence in chief yesterday I think ought to have conveyed to you what her real grievance is, well one of her grievances is, is why did they blow up the body?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, the family is hurt because of that. Why wasn't he tried in a court of law and so on and we've heard evidence as to why those steps were not taken.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the ...

CHAIRPERSON: The rest is a matter of argument, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the only dilemma is that I can't let the evidence go uncontested, I've got to put to her, because that is the basis upon which the objection has been made. I've got to put to her that she's wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: No, what you've got to put to her is what else have they not disclosed?

MR VISSER: That's exactly what I'm asking her Chairperson, what do you expect them to tell you?

MRS NINELA: They have not told me...

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Ninela, can you just give me a little time?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If they hadn't applied for amnesty you would have never known what had happened to your son.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You now know what happened to your son.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They're now explaining why they did what they did. It is unacceptable to you because you think they ought to have done something different. That much is clear from your evidence. You believe that he, your son, ought to have been tried in a court of law.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand all that. We have reached a stage in the evidence where you are opposing this application for amnesty and one of the grounds on which you are opposing is that they have not told the truth. What counsel is trying to get from you and what we are interested in is what else should they have said, which they have not yet said, apart from what we have already been ...

MRS NINELA: Okay. One of the men said, Blessing Ninela was found with a bomb.

MR VISSER: No, No, I'm going to stop you because that is not true.

MRS NINELA: But it was said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no I think you misunderstood the evidence. You see, the men said that they were told by Taylor that Blessing was found with a limpet mine. They did not know that, they were told by Taylor. Taylor is dead now so we're not concerned with Taylor. He is not here to give evidence, he's dead. Do you understand?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we're now talking about these people whose evidence is what they were told by Taylor, they did what they did because they were told to do that. All that is quite clear to you. I get the impression that you have a very intelligent understanding of what has happened. We are now narrowing the question down to the next point and that is ?

MRS NINELA: And why is this amnesty today when Mr Taylor is dead. Why wasn't it done before his death?

CHAIRPERSON: Well now you see you can't blame them. That's the whole process as far as the Amnesty Committee is concerned. The Amnesty Committee was not going to know that Taylor was going to die and matters of that kind. Do you understand? There are hundreds of matters that have to be dealt with by the Amnesty Committee. I think we should confine ourselves not as to why the case was not heard then, let's just take the situation as it is now. Is there anything that you think that these people are holding back?

MRS NINELA: Another thing I want to know, why does one of the applicants says they put the hands behind his head?

CHAIRPERSON: Because they did not want any identification of this body to be made.

MRS NINELA: Do you expect the hands to be blown off from the back of the head and the back of the skull to be discovered? Can that happen?

CHAIRPERSON: Well now ...(intervention)

MRS NINELA: To blow the hands behind the head and the skull is not blown?

CHAIRPERSON: Whether they thought that so or not, the fact of the matter is that that is how it was done.

MRS NINELA: It is not that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, they killed your son, it might have been slightly different, but that doesn't really matter. As far as they were concerned they were killing a person and they were hoping that that person's body would not be identified. That is what they were hoping to do.

MRS NINELA: Even that statement, there's no truth in it as I mentioned that they say they put the hands behind his head. That didn't happen. According to the bones we find. The hands were off, the front of the head was off, but the back was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MRS NINELA: If the hands were blown from the back, the head would be blown from the back.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else which they have not said which means that they should not be given amnesty because they are holding back some important evidence? That's the question.

MRS NINELA: I think there is much. They know what they are hiding, I cannot say. They know, but they are sure that there is something that they are hiding and I can't dig it out from them, because if they don't want to cough it out, they don't want to and I can't make them do it.

CHAIRPERSON: But what is it about? You might not know, but on what point is it that you want them to reveal facts?

MRS NINELA: Why don't they just state the whole thing as it was, without beating about the bushes in other aspects? Why don't they just state everything as it happened and everybody involved in their actions?

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, how do we know anything at all except what we are hearing?

MRS NINELA: Yes, we don't know, but they know. But they're sure that they're hiding something, they're not giving out everything that happened as it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now please tell us, what do you think that they are hiding?

MRS NINELA: I cannot think for them, they know.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no you see it isn't enough. You are saying that they are not making a full disclosure. Now you must tell us what is it that they are holding back?

MRS NINELA: They don't tell every detail of what they did and they don't tell us whoever was connected with that. They don't tell us the people who they were working with to do all this. I know my son will never live again. I know and I'm sure they are quite satisfied about that and are quite happy about that because I am the loser, I lost my son and my property at Inanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. We can't take the matter any further.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. I just want to put it to you, Mr Ninela, that you're wrong, there was never evidence to the effect that the hands were placed behind the head of Mr Ninela when he was blown up. That was never evidence given before this Committee or evidence that I'm aware of. I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MRS NINELA: I have that I heard that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel.

MS GABRIEL: I have no re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL

CHAIRPERSON: Was there evidence to put this at rest, to your recollection was there evidence that his hands were placed behind his head before he was blown up and is it of any significance or is it a matter which you will address us on?

MS GABRIEL: If I may be permitted to check my notes during the proceedings, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, I have no re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Have you any questions to ask?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich, have you anything to say?

MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, just a few matters for some clarification.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RORICH: Mrs Ninela, you said in respect of Blessing being an MK member that you know nothing of it, is that correct? You said in respect of whether Blessing was an MK member, "I know nothing of it", is that correct?

MRS NINELA: I didn't know.

MR RORICH: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Was he what?

MR RORICH: Was he a member of the ANC at that stage?

MRS NINELA: I didn't know that.

MR RORICH: Okay then, Mrs Ninela, you said in your evidence yesterday that you heard an explosion, is that correct, on the 2nd of June?

MRS NINELA: I don't remember the date, but I heard an explosion.

MR RORICH: So how far away was the explosion from you?

MRS NINELA: It may be 3 or 4 miles away from home.

MR RORICH: And what time was this explosion, more or less, if you can remember?

MRS NINELA: At night.

MR RORICH: Time, more or less?

MRS NINELA: More or less 10.

MR RORICH: You also said that an unidentified man was found in your yard, is that correct?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR RORICH: An unidentified man. A man not known to you was found in the yard, is that correct?

MRS NINELA: Will you please put that clearer?

CHAIRPERSON: Just clear that up. When you say he was found in the yard.

MR RORICH: Certainly, Mr Chairperson. You said you went outside at 10 o'clock in the evening.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw a stranger.

MR RORICH: You saw a stranger outside, is that correct?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR RORICH: Was that person known to you?

MRS NINELA: Known to?

MR RORICH: Known to you, at that stage?

MRS NINELA: I didn't know him.

MR RORICH: Can you please explain to this Commission, out of all the houses in the vicinity, why would this person who was injured come to your house?

CHAIRPERSON: How would she know?

MRS NINELA: He said he wanted help, he was hurt.

MR RORICH: And how badly injured was he?

MRS NINELA: I didn't see because when I was told he was badly injured, I had a feeling as if there was cold water running down from my tummy to my legs, I decided not to look at it.

MR RORICH: And what was his explanation for being there?

MRS NINELA: He said some people shot them, with his brother.

MR RORICH: Did you call the police?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR RORICH: Did you call an ambulance?

MRS NINELA: There's no ambulance operating at that place.

MR RORICH: So if you can just explain this to the Commission correctly please. You heard an explosion, a strange man is found in your yard.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR RORICH: He says he's been shot.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR RORICH: You don't alert the police.

MRS NINELA: How could I get to the police?

MR RORICH: Well, doesn't someone have a phone?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR RORICH: Or isn't there any other way that you can contact?

MRS NINELA: No, at night it wasn't safe for a woman to go out of the house and go to other people.

MR RORICH: What about your nephew?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR RORICH: What about your nephew that you said was there?

MRS NINELA: Even with the men, it was not safe, worse with a woman.

MR RORICH: So despite the fact that you told this Commission yesterday that we must trust the police and abide by the law, you never notified the police?

MRS NINELA: Where were they, and how could I get to them?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that question is not really relevant at this stage.

MRS NINELA: Where were the police? Where could I get them and how could I get to them?

CHAIRPERSON: At least she tried to render medical assistance to the best of her ability.

MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I'll clarify that later. So in your evidence you said that this man was eventually taken to the taxi and he went to hospital, Is that correct?

MRS NINELA: No, he wasn't taken to the taxi. The nephew, our nephew took him as far as the bus stop which was near his home, so he went to his house, because he could walk.

MR RORICH: Fair enough, but this man eventually did land in hospital. Correct?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR RORICH: Fine. The Security Police have stated that they went to the hospital. That this same man in hospital told they about Blessing, is that correct?

MRS NINELA: I wasn't there.

MR RORICH: Well that's what the evidence says, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: How can she say it is correct?

MR RORICH: I withdraw that question, Mr Chairman. This same in hospital gives information to the police in respect of Belssing. Two policemen come to your residence and they ask you in respect of Blessing, was he there?

MRS NINELA: Two policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: She wouldn't know that. There were two people.

MR RORICH: Well, according to her evidence yesterday, he son identified them as two investigators, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, as far as she's concerned ...(intervention)

MRS NINELA: How can you say a man who is not under uniform, how can you tell that man is an investigator or a detective?

MR LAX: Mr Rorich, sorry, it's your client's own case. Those people were pretending to be MK people, not policemen, that's your client's case, so they certainly weren't saying they were policemen. All that the report that her son allegedly made, via some other person, which was reported to her was that they were referred to as investigators or "abaseshi", which is a generalised term for a detective or someone of that stature.

MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chair, that's what I was trying to extract. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RORICH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have you any questions to ask of her? Ms Gabriel you have already indicated you have no re-examination?

MS GABRIEL: I confirm that, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, you are excused from further attendance.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, the next witness we call is Sebelo Ngobese and his statement is in bundle 2 beginning on page 63.

SEBELO NGOBESE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mr Sebelo, I'm going to ask you a few questions and I'm going to confine it purely to information that was delivered at the hearing yesterday and that was to a period of time when Mr Ninela was in detention. Mr du Preez seemed to indicate that this was because of his union activities way back in 1987 and I suggested to Mr du Preez that the letters also pointed to a house in Inanda at which weapons were found. Mr du Preez obviously claimed that he could not remember any of this until he had read those documents and he couldn't remember any further details of that. Now, essentially what I need to know from you is are you familiar with that period of time and the circumstances under which Blessing was detained? Are you able to offer the Committee any further information on this?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Perhaps you could begin then by explaining how it is that you knew Blessing Ninela.

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairman, before he proceeds I hope I'm not interrupting unnecessarily but has this witness been sworn?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR NGOBESE: I first met Blessing Ninela towards the end of 1984 or at the beginning of 1985. We were organisers of KwaZulu Natal in Pinetown.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear that, we were organisers for what?

MR NGOBESE: South African Workers Union.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give the interpreter time to interpret everything that you say please.

MR NGOBESE: Kevin approached me to identify people whom we were going to work with them under the propaganda unit of the ANC. I identified Sefiso and I was staying with Sefiso at Chesterville. We had a problem and Sefiso was very close to Blessing Ninela and because of the problem he was facing at Chesterville, he left and stayed with Blessing at kwaMakutha in South Coast and later there was a time when there was conflict between the Mpondo and the Zulus. They left that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Which area?

MR NGOBESE: kwaMakuto. It was at kwaMakutho and Zibogodweni, this was the area where there was conflict between Amampondo and Amazulu. Sefiso had left Chesterville because of the A team problem.

MS GABRIEL: Maybe you could assist us about talking to us where he went to after that.

MR NGOBESE: Sefiso came back to Chesterville and he told me that Blessing Ninela was now staying at Inanda.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Ms Gabriel you must put your questions, otherwise you are going to find that you will have a rambling answer. Shouldn't it be more purposeful?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Ngobese, when did you first meet Blessing Ninela?

CHAIRPERSON: He said 1984 or 1985.

MS GABRIEL: Right. Where did you meet him?

MR NGOBESE: In Pinetown.

MS GABRIEL: When was the next time that you met him?

MR NGOBESE: We used to meet each other at Pinetown in the offices of SAWU because Blessing was not staying at Inanda.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Ngobese you've told us that Sefiso made contact with Blessing and that there was a house in Inanda. Can you tell us about whether you met Blessing at this house in Inanda? Can you talk to us about that period of time?

MR NGOBESE: I don't remember meeting Blessing at Inanda, but where Kevin, myself and Sefiso were working at Inanda, there was a house and we were printing leaflets and propaganda for the ANC.

MS GABRIEL: Whose house was this?

MR NGOBESE: Sefiso had told me it was Blessing's house. He requested him to look after the house.

MS GABRIEL: Now these activities that you refer to, a printing press and photostat machine, what activities would this, for which organisation were you working at the time?

MR NGOBESE: We were doing it for the ANC, it was the ANC propaganda and we used to distribute those leaflets in Durban and Pietermaritzburg surroundings.

MS GABRIEL: So if I understand your evidence correctly what you had was an ANC cell operating from this house at which Blessing supposedly lived?

MR NGOBESE: Yes, that's correct.

MS GABRIEL: Now can you assist us by telling us if Blessing was a part of these activities? Did he work with you?

MR NGOBESE: No, Blessing was not a member of our cell and he was never involved in any of these activities.

MS GABRIEL: Do you have any idea, Blessing subsequently detained in 1987, do you have any idea why he was detained?

MR NGOBESE: As we were working there in that house at Inanda, Sefiso told me that he had seen other guerillas in Chesterville and police knew that they were already at Chesterville, now he was deciding to take those guerillas from Chesterville to Inanda. We discussed about this, that it was going to blow our cover in that Inanda, but then we decided to take them. When they arrived at Inanda, we reported the matter to our offices in Swaziland and we told them that we were staying with them and after a while we heard that someone from Swaziland came to fetch them. I was staying with Sefiso at Clermont. We left Clermont for Pietermaritzburg.

Whilst we were in 'Maritzburg, we received a report that police had raided the house at Inanda. They came together with Ricky Filanda who was staying with the guerillas at Inanda, but Ricky was arrested somewhere near Empangeni together with other boys he had recruited from Empangeni and when he came back with the police, they searched the house, they found the printer which we were using to print the propaganda for the ANC and weapons. I heard that they went to Blessing Ninela's work and arrested him and questioned him about what they found in that house at Inanda.

After a few days we were arrested from Maritzburg, myself and Sefiso. We were brought to Pinetown police station. When we were in Pinetown police station whilst they were interrogating us, the police managed to link us to the Inanda house and Blessing as well. We explained to them that Blessing was not a member of our unit and he was not staying in that house. He had requested Sefiso to look after the house and he was staying somewhere else, because Inanda was far from where he was working. Blessing was not a member of our unit. I think he was released because of that, because of our confession, but myself and the others, we were not released earlier and Sefiso, they've tried to turn him into a state witness.

MS GABRIEL: So what you are saying then is that Blessing was initially linked with your activities? You were the ANC cell in the area, he was linked with your activities, he was detained and ultimately released. Is that your evidence?

MR NGOBESE: Yes, that's correct.

MS GABRIEL: Thank you, Mr Ngobese.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MS GABRIEL: That is all the evidence I wish to lead Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GABRIEL

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you hear from that weapons were found in that house in Inanda?

MR NGOBESE: I will say it was Sefiso because most of the time I was depending on Sefiso for information because he was the one who was involved in communicating with the other members and moving them.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you were using that house as a printing, as a propaganda centre, you said that some guerillas were taken into the house and kept there for a while.

MR NGOBESE: Yes, that's chaired.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Blessing part of that arrangement? Did he know about that?

MR NGOBESE: No, it was Sefiso and myself and we were in Chesterville, not at Inanda. He was not involved in the discussion at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Who was in the house when the weapons were found? Do you know?

MR NGOBESE: No, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know what weapons were found?

MR NGOBESE: I heard that they had found AK47 and hand- grenades, I don't know how many.

CHAIRPERSON: How did they get there, these weapons?

MR NGOBESE: I don't know whether for sure, the guerillas who were brought by Sefiso from Chesterville to Inanda brought the weapons. Maybe when they left for Swaziland they left the weapons, that's why when the police came after they had left for Swaziland, they found the weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long were you in detention?

MR NGOBESE: I was arrested in January 29 1987 and I was released just before June 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else you wish from this witness?

MS GABRIEL: Perhaps just one last question which has occurred to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL

MS GABRIEL: In the time that you knew Blessing Ninela, were you ever aware that he was involved in military activities on behalf ...(end of tape)

MR NGOBESE: No, not at all.

MS GABRIEL: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GABRIEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: How long did these guerillas stay there at the house in Inanda?

MR NGOBESE: It can be three weeks.

MR VISSER: Pardon?

MR NGOBESE: It can be three weeks.

MR VISSER: Three weeks. How regularly did you visit that house in Inanda? Every day?

MR NGOBESE: When there were guerillas I never used to frequent the place and I never used to go everyday. I will only go there when we needed to print.

MR VISSER: How often did that happen? Once a week? Twice a week?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it when the guerillas were there?

MR VISSER: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Just clear that.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry. When the guerillas were not there and you only went there for printing purposes, how often was that? Once a week? Twice a week? Once a month? What was the position?

MR NGOBESE: Twice a month.

MR VISSER: Twice a month. So in the period when the guerillas were there, didn't you visit the house in Inanda at all?

MR NGOBESE: I didn't.

MR VISSER: As I understand your evidence you recruited Sefiso to work with you for SAWU, is that correct?

MR NGOBESE: No, Sefiso was an old friend of Ian Samesa, who was a member of SAWU. I was also a friend of Ian Samesa. I think we were both recruited by Ian.

MR VISSER: Who was the leader, yourself or Sefiso, or Blessing Ninela?

MR NGOBESE: No, in our unit the commander was Kevin Koshiane.

MR VISSER: And below him? Who was directly below him?

MR NGOBESE: Myself.

MR VISSER: Yes. And Sefiso was under you, not so?

MR NGOBESE: I will say so.

MR VISSER: Well, you see, why I ask you these questions is that it surprises one to hear that Sefiso was the one who did everything and you really weren't involved in anything. You weren't involved in bringing the guerillas to the house, were you?

MR NGOBESE: I was just released, at the time I was just released from Robben Island and I didn't know as to exactly what was going on. Sefiso was a member of COSAS. The guerillas were not part of my duties. Sefiso did this by chance, just helping them out for a while. We knew that it was just temporary, we were helping the guerillas to escape.

MR VISSER: You don't know how the weapons got there?

MR NGOBESE: No, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Did you know where they were, on the stand, in the house, outside?

MR NGOBESE: No, I didn't.

MR VISSER: What were you convicted of?

MR NGOBESE: For recruiting people for the ANC.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did it have nothing to do with the fact of the weapons at the Inanda house and the printing press?

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it, just let's get this clear. You say it had nothing to do with the weapons?

MR VISSER: I'm asking him.

CHAIRPERSON: And the printing press.

MR VISSER: And the printing press.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you see when he's recruiting people for the ANC, he might be using the printing press for that purpose, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: Just draw the distinction.

MR VISSER: Perhaps you're correct, I should distinguish.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Can I also ask you just while you're at it to distinguish between which conviction you're talking about as well. He may have had more than one, we don't know.

MR VISSER: Well, I wasn't aware of that, thank you Sir, Commissioner.

MR VISSER: How many times were you convicted and sent to prison in regard to political activities?

MR NGOBESE: I was arrested for the first time in 1977 and I was convicted and I was released in 1984, And in 1987 I was arrested again. I was never convicted, I was acquitted.

MR VISSER: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: He was released.

MR VISSER: He was released. Yes. Were they holding you in 1987 to 1988? Was there a trial, I'm sorry, was there a trial that took place?

MR NGOBESE: I was charged and there was a trial and I was acquitted.

MR VISSER: And you were acquitted. I see. At that trial, did that deal with the presence of weapons in the Inanda house of Blessing Ninela, or not?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Right. And did it deal with the fact that there was a printing press?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the fact that there were guerillas that were sheltered there?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And how many people were charged in that trial with you? Yourself and how many others?

MR NGOBESE: Myself and my brother, Blessing Ngobese.

MR VISSER: Yes. What happened to Blessing Ngobese? Was he also acquitted?

MR NGOBESE: He was sentenced.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did that have, his sentence, have anything to do with the weapons or the guerillas or the printing press at the Inanda house?

MR NGOBESE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he sentenced for?

MR NGOBESE: I think it was because his handwriting was in many documents which we used to send to Swaziland and the police got hold of those documents, I don't know how, but his handwriting was in those documents.

MR VISSER: When you knew about the four guerillas, you say during that period of time they were in the house in Inanda you, I'm not certain what you're saying, did you not visit the house at all while the guerillas were there, is that what you're saying?

MR NGOBESE: No, I didn't go in that house at all.

MR VISSER: But you wouldn't know whether Blessing Ninela was still staying at that house, would you, at that time?

MR NGOBESE: Yes, it is true, I wouldn't know because I didn't go, but what I knew is that Sefiso was staying there, not Blessing.

MR VISSER: Yes, but that's because of what Sefiso told you, not so?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now, lastly Sir, by the same token, you would not know what the activities of Mr Blessing Ninela were, apart from where you had contact with him in SAWU, not so? Whatever else he did you didn't know about?

MR NGOBESE: If he was involved, I would have known from Sefiso. Sefiso was going to tell me and myself, because I was also part of the unit, I would have known if he was part of the unit. I never knew that he was.

MR VISSER: You already stated that as far as you're concerned, Blessing Ninela was not part of your unit. I understand that. I'm asking you, you wouldn't have personal knowledge of the other activities of Mr Blessing Ninela, that's what I'm asking you.

MR NGOBESE: Yes, it's true.

MR VISSER: You wouldn't know where he got hold of a limpet mine which he trained other people with, would you?

MR NGOBESE: I don't believe that. I don't believe that Blessing was ever, or ever got hold of a limpet mine. I met Blessing in Pinetown, he never mentioned anything like that. He would have told me.

MR VISSER: Alright we can argue that because there are statements in papers before us that Blessing in fact did have a limpet mine and that he gave it to the two Bhengu brothers and told them how to use it. Are you denying that?

MR NGOBESE: I believe that the police have fabricated some of the stories about Blessing.

MR VISSER: I see, so you're saying, is that your evidence here under oath? That is your belief based on what you know, that the police fabricated the story that Blessing was in possession of a limpet mine and that he handed it to the Bhengu brothers, is that what you're saying?

MR NGOBESE: It is new to me and also I didn't know that Blessing was killed, or died and as far as I've known Blessing he was never a military person. Then I don't know how he can get involved with limpet mines.

MR VISSER: That's not what I asked you Sir, I asked you whether it is your evidence that it is your belief that the police fabricated this whole story of the limpet mine that was in possession of Blessing and that he handed to the Bhengu brothers. That's my question.

MR NGOBESE: This is what I found from this hearing that Blessing was found with a limpet mine. I don't know Blessing as someone who has been involved with limpet mines.

MR VISSER: So you won't answer the question. Alright. I'll argue it Chairperson. And whether Blessing was involved with any other ANC cells or not, you would also not have any personal knowledge about?

MR NGOBESE: Yes, I wouldn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Other cells. You're talking about military activities in those cells?

MR VISSER: Well, ANC cells.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he says that as far as he's concerned Blessing was never a military person.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's his knowledge.

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. He also said that Blessing was never a member of his cell.

MR LAX: But his cell wasn't a military cell.

MR VISSER: That's the point. That's the point. That's why I didn't talk about a military cell, I talk about other ANC cells, Chairperson. It's wider than just a military cell and he says he wouldn't know. Would you bear with me just a moment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR VISSER: No further questions thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich?

MR RORICH: No questions, Mr Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RORICH

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MS GABRIEL: No re-examination Mr Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GABRIEL

MR LAX: Mr Ngobese, did you remain, after, as I understand it, when did you trial finish? When did your trial finish?

MR NGOBESE: I think it was in August 1988 when Blessing Ngobese was convicted.

MR LAX: And you were in custody then from 1987 until the end of your trial?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR LAX: So, basically you didn't have anything to do with Blessing Ninela from 1987 and you never saw him again until after, well you didn't see him because he'd disappeared by then?

MR NGOBESE: Yes.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, the next witness we wish to call is Senzo Bhengu and his statement appears at bundle 2, page 60.

HUMPHREY SENZO BHENGU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mr Bhengu...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Bhengu, you can adjust those headphones by pushing the headphone up into the thing on your head and that will make you more comfortable. Is that more comfortable?

MR BHENGU: It's okay.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Bhengu, I'm going to ask you very specific questions and I'm going to ask you very short questions because there's just one area that we need to know about. In the evidence yesterday we heard information that Blessing Ninela was somehow implicated with an explosion at which your brother was killed and at which you were injured. Can you help the Committee by describing to us how these events occurred and what your relationship was with Mr Ninela at that time?

MR BHENGU: I was born in the Ncolosi area in 1968 and that is where I grew up. I knew Blessing as a member of the community and as time progressed there was friction between the UDF and the Inkatha Freedom Party at the time. One day there was a wedding ceremony at the Thembu house. As preparation was underway for the wedding we were attacked by Inkatha members. They were from the Macumini area and the Bhengu home.

We would occasionally discuss matters with Mr Ninela.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell Ninela that you had been attacked by IFP members?

MR BHENGU: I am still relating the story.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want you to relate the story, I want you to answer questions please. You are here to answer questions you see and I wish you'd be specific. So as a result of the attack on you, did you tell Blessing about it?

MR BHENGU: Yes, we discussed the matter with him, that we were being harassed.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was decided?

MR BHENGU: We did not make a decision but we just thought that we would monitor the situation and see how things go and as time progressed, this war did not stop and in fact it got worse and at some point when we were discussing some things, Mr Ninela showed us some weapon, it was a bomb and he told us, gave us instructions on how this bomb worked. We did not take it from him at that time but we just discussed about it and left it with him, but eventually we got hold of the bomb.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR BHENGU: I cannot remember precisely when, but we did take it from him. At that time the war against us by Inkatha was at it's worst.

MS GABRIEL: Did you use this bomb? Can you tell us about that?

MR BHENGU: When we had the bomb in our possession, it became clear that we could not just wait for an attack but should attack first, so we launched an attack on the Mbambo house on the 8th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: What year?

MR LAX: It was 1988.

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, and then what happened?

MR BHENGU: As we arrived at the Mbambo house, we prepared the bomb for detonation. I don't know what happened, but I fell unconscious and I regained consciousness at some point and I tried to find out exactly where I was but, because of the injuries that I had sustained, I could not see clearly. My left-hand side was totally injured. I then moved from that place and went to Blessing's home.

MS GABRIEL: Did you find him?

MR BHENGU: No, I did not.

MS GABRIEL: What did you do next?

MR BHENGU: At his home I received assistance. They washed my injuries with warm water and they gave me some tablets. The following morning, I went to my home and I also slept there when I'd arrived.

MS GABRIEL: Did you have any contact with Blessing after this?

MR BHENGU: The morning before I went to identify the spot where we had been, we met him along the way and we managed to talk.

MS GABRIEL: And what was said?

MR BHENGU: I told him that I had this problem. I did not know what had happened, if one had been shot at or if anything had happened to my brother, because I could not find him and we were on our way to that spot to look for him.

MS GABRIEL: What did Blessing say?

MR BHENGU: As we were talking we realised that there was something wrong and he then told me that I should inform the police on what had happened because at the time we were of the opinion that we had been shot at.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, and then what happened?

MR BHENGU: We then reached that spot and I discovered my brother's body which was badly maimed.

MS GABRIEL: Now immediately after this you went into hospital to receive treatment?

MR BHENGU: Yes, I did.

MS GABRIEL: And there was some evidence that people came to see you at the hospital. Who were these people and what did they ask you and what did you tell them? Could you tell us about that, while you were in hospital?

MR BHENGU: After I had been admitted, a group of soldiers came to me and some of them were in police uniform and these policemen checked where I was being placed, they monitored the ward in which I was being placed. I was guarded by a group of two policemen and I was always under police guard, under 24 hour guard.

MS GABRIEL: Right, who came to visit you in hospital?

MR BHENGU: I was woken up by a group of men. Three white men. They were in the company of some people I knew, Chief Bhengu, Felix Bhengu, as well as Mr Mbambo who was a teacher in our area. I think his first name was Doda.

MS GABRIEL: Do you know the names of these white men? Did they tell you what their names were?

MR BHENGU: When they arrived they said they were attorneys who had been sent by Blessing, who were going to assist me any way they could.

MS GABRIEL: What did you discuss with them?

MR BHENGU: The police who had been keeping watch over me were told to leave the room and then they started questioning me on what had happened, whether I knew that my brother was dead, such questions and from the way that they had introduced themselves and the presence of these other two people who were there, I explained everything as to what had happened to us.

MS GABRIEL: And you told them that Blessing had given you this bomb, did you tell them that?

MR BHENGU: Yes, I did.

MS GABRIEL: Right. What happened after that?

MR BHENGU: They left thereafter. I do not remember who else came to visit me. When I was discharged, I was fetched at about 9 p.m.

MS GABRIEL: Sorry, let me just stop you there. The men that came to visit you in the hospital, have you met any of these men since then? Have you recognised any of them since then?

MR BHENGU: I did not meet any of them but I do remember the first person who gave testimony here yesterday, he came to me as an attorney and I was surprised when he revealed that he was a policeman.

MS GABRIEL: Are you saying that the first applicant that gave testimony here yesterday, was the person, was one of the people who came to visit you in the hospital?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MS GABRIEL: Would that be Mr du Preez?

MR BHENGU: I think so.

MS GABRIEL: You're not certain?

MR BHENGU: Well, they do look alike, but I think he is the one.

MS GABRIEL: Where did you go after you were released from hospital?

MR BHENGU: I was fetched in a yellow land rover. It was driven by some old man. I was driven for about 4 hours to C R Swart and they would occasionally stop along the way, open the van and close it and this man was just drinking along the way.

MS GABRIEL: Right, and you got to C R Swart and what happened there?

MR BHENGU: I was registered and they took my money, the sum of R30-00 which they never returned.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, what else happened to you at C R Swart?

MR BHENGU: I spent the night in cell number 20. I think on the following day I was interrogated.

MS GABRIEL: By whom? Who interrogated you? Can you remember?

MR BHENGU: I was fetched by a black person from the cell and he handed me over to a white person who was in room number 15, but I do not remember his name, but he spoke in Zulu.

MS GABRIEL: What did they ask you?

MR BHENGU: He questioned me on how we had sustained our injuries, which I told him and he asked me where I had been trained, when I'd gone to exile, with whom had I returned to South Africa and that was information I did not have because I didn't know what he was talking about. He continued questioning me telling me that I should be truthful, because if I don't speak the truth things won't be okay, but he told me that he knew Mr Ninela. He even said that Mr Ninela was no longer in South Africa but in Angola.

MS GABRIEL: Did you tell these people that you got the bomb from Ninela?

MR BHENGU: This is information I had already given to them whilst I was in the hospital and I also said it again when he questioned me.

MS GABRIEL: Did they take statements from you while you were at C R Swart?

MR BHENGU: Yes, there was a statement that was written. When they were interrogating me the first time, they did not believe my story, but the second time around when they questioned me, yes they did take the statement down.

MS GABRIEL: And what happened to you after this interrogation?

MR BHENGU: Thereafter I was instructed to leave. They took me home the following day and what used to happen was that the cell was never lit, you never knew the time of day.

CHAIRPERSON: How long were you in the cell at C R Swart before you were released?

MR BHENGU: It could have been two weeks or slightly less.

Two or three.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Did you hear from Blessing Ninela after that, after you were released?

MR BHENGU: No, because when I arrived at home I discovered that the IFP had gained strength and a lot of people had fled the area. I also fled to Inanda and thereafter went to live with my grandmother at Umlazi.

MS GABRIEL: Were there any investigations carried out over the death of your brother? Do you know anything about this?

MR BHENGU: Before I made a statement to the TRC there was no investigation that I was aware of.

MS GABRIEL: Those are my questions, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GABRIEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short adjournment and resume in 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

HUMPHREY SENZO BHENGU: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: We are losing valuable time during adjournments, one must try and avoid that.

Yes, Mr Visser any cross-examination of this witness?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, very briefly. Before I do so, may I ask you to look at Exhibit B and to page some 23 pages into Exhibit B, I hope yours is in the same order as mine, where you will find, Mr Chairman, actually 25 pages, a second statement of Mr Humphrey Senzo Bhengu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I will briefly refer to that statement in comparison with what we find at page 60 and onwards.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Bengu, do I understand it correctly, the problems which you experienced in the area where you were living concerned a rivalry between the IFP and the ANC?

MR LAX: Mr Visser, he said UDF, but you know the ANC wasn't a lawful organisation in those days.

MR VISSER: I'm happy to amend my question. Was it really a rivalry between the IFP, the Inkatha youth and supporters of the UDF?

MR LAX: Please just switch your microphone on, Mr Bhengu.

MR BHENGU: No, I said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sit closer to the microphone so we can hear properly.

MR BHENGU: I said the problems were between Inkatha and the UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And did you look up to Mr Blessing Ninela as a person older than yourself and your brother?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And did he give you self-defence training?

MR BHENGU: No, I wouldn't call it self-defence, but the situation was bad in the area, you had to take care.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give you training, we're talking about Blessing?

MR BHENGU: Not exactly.

MR VISSER: Can I read to you what you said in your statement at page 60, paragraph 2? Third line, end of the sentence,

"Blessing started to give us self-defence training"

Is that wrong or is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Let him see it. Yes.

MR VISSER: The third sentence, the last word starts with Blessing, in paragraph 2 at page 60, bundle 1, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: So is that statement correct, or is it wrong?

MR BHENGU: It is true.

MR VISSER: And he told you how to use firearms, although you didn't have a firearm to demonstrate with, is that correct?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And he politicised you?

MR BHENGU: He did not exactly teach us about politics, but it was obvious from the situation that pertained at the time, that one should make a choice of what one is going to do, but it was not political education as such.

MR VISSER: Alright. And it then turned out that on Sunday the 5th of June 1988, he, a conversation took place between yourself and your brother and Blessing Ninela. That is paragraph 10 in the inquests documents, Chairperson, the one that you've marked.

MR LAX: It's in fact paragraph 9, Mr Visser, but it's not that material.

MR VISSER: The only point I want to make now is that the date is wrong in paragraph 10, it should read the 6th, if the date in paragraph 9 is correct and we've checked, that is the correct date, Sunday the 5th of June 1988, so Monday should then have been not the 4th of June but the 6th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: And what I'm asking you is according to you there was a conversation that took place with - I'm sorry you are correct, Mr Commissioner, paragraph 5. On the Sunday you told Mr Ninela about what had happened in the attack of the Inkatha youth on you, is that correct?

MR BHENGU: Yes, we did discuss the matter.

MR VISSER: And on the Monday you received the bomb from him?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And he showed you how to work it?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And you said at page 3 in paragraph 10 at the end of that, that he handed you the bomb to protect yourselves, is that correct?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you yourself say further down that's it difficult to understand how you could use a bomb to protect yourself, in paragraph 11. Do you still have that opinion?

MS GABRIEL: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it's paragraph 11, I will read it, second sentence

"We found that it was going to be difficult to use it when we are attacked."

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And that is why you decided to use the bomb to attack yourselves, to attack someone else?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And those persons were a Mr Fikazi and Mazwi Mbambo, is that correct?

MR BHENGU: Yes.

MR VISSER: And how were you going to attack them with the bomb?

MR BHENGU: I'm sure you are well aware of how that bomb works. We were going to prepare it for it to detonate.

MR VISSER: Well in the room where they stayed, or how? How were you going to target those two persons?

MR BHENGU: They resided in a one-roomed house. That was where we were going to place it.

CHAIRPERSON: Inside the house?

MR BHENGU: It was at night and we were not going to be able to get inside. We would have put it outside.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the question.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Did you intend to kill these people?

MR BHENGU: Well, it would have been decided by the bomb.

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm more interested in what your intention was, was your intention to kill them?

MR BHENGU: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And anybody else that was in the house?

MR BHENGU: I do not know about that.

MR VISSER: Alright. You - the bomb then explodes and then where did you go after you came to?

MR BHENGU: In fact I did not know that the bomb had exploded, I thought somebody had shot at us.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR BHENGU: And when I regained consciousness, I went down the road to Blessing's home.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you go to your own home to tell your father about it?

MR BHENGU: I did not see it as important, or it did not occur to me.

MR VISSER: Was it more important to tell Blessing about it?

MR BHENGU: It was important.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Blessing there when you went to his house?

MR BHENGU: He was not there.

MR VISSER: Now, I just want to put it to you - well, let me ask you this, when did you first decide that it might have been Mr du Preez who pretended to be an attorney who visited you in hospital? When did that first occur to you?

MR BHENGU: Please repeat that question.

MR VISSER: When did it first occur to you ever that one of the persons who pretended to be an attorney who visited you in hospital, might have been Mr du Preez?

MR BHENGU: I do not understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, just hold on. Why do you say that it was Mr du Preez who came to see you in hospital, pretending to be an attorney? Why do you say that?

MR BHENGU: I saw him yesterday and realised that he was a policeman and I had also discovered that the people who came to see me in hospital were policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before that day in hospital, had you seen Mr du Preez at any other time?

MR BHENGU: I was not used to white people. I saw him for the first time there.

CHAIRPERSON: In hospital. And the second time you saw him was here in court yesterday?

MR BHENGU: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright, leave it at that.

MR VISSER: Just perhaps just one further question on that. Did you attend the pointing out of the spot where Mr Ninela was killed with the investigation unit of the TRC?

MR BHENGU: I was not there.

MR VISSER: Yes, well I just want to put it to you that Mr du Preez denies that he had anything to do with you after you were injured by the limpet mine. What do you say to that?

MR BHENGU: He is very correct when he says he denies that, but he knows about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that you are mistaken? Please don't lean back when you are talking, speak into the mike. Is it possible that you are mistaken? It could have been somebody else?

MR BHENGU: I recognise him as one of those persons who came to me as attorneys, although he may be slightly older now.

MR VISSER: We're talking about 11 years ago.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, perhaps I could curtail the proceedings. I distinctly remember leading evidence in chief of Mr Bengu. He wasn't certain on that point, that he wasn't certain that the man that he saw was du Preez.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll leave it at that, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: In fairness to my learned friend, she's quite correct, that's why I said might.

CHAIRPERSON: Just leave it at that, I don't think you can take it much further.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no further questions thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich any cross-examination of this witness?

MR RORICH: Mr Chair, Mr Steyn has already covered the questions I wanted to traverse.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RORICH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think that - oh, has he gone?

MS GABRIEL: Come back. Come back.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think that you had been shot at? Did you not hear an explosion from the bomb?

MR BHENGU: At that precise second, I could not be sure of what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not asking you to be sure, I'm asking whether you heard the explosion of the bomb.

MR BHENGU: I'll say yes because I heard the noise when it first exploded and thereafter I do not know what happened, and it was clear what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Bhengu, just one aspect. Why was it important for you to tell Blessing that you'd been shot, or attacked, or whatever?

MR BHENGU: In my mind I though that maybe we could have dropped the bomb so that we could go back and check if the bomb was somewhere around there so that no one else can come pick it up.

MR LAX: Please just repeat the answer again Ms Interpreter.

MR BHENGU: I thought I should report it immediately because I thought that maybe the bomb had fallen onto the ground and it could be lying somewhere around and anybody else could have come pick it up.

MR LAX: So even at that stage, you didn't realise that it was the bomb that had exploded?

MR BHENGU: In most instances the IFP would have home-made guns called Okwuash, that is what I thought it was.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, you may leave now.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Gabriel.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, that was the final witness on behalf of the family.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you propose to address us?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairman.

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman first of all, with apologies to my colleagues who have now come in to this session, Ms Gabriel and Mr Rorich, unfortunately we do not have copies of the general argument which we handed up to your earlier, which will place them at a disadvantage, particularly Ms Gabriel. We were hoping to make copies this morning but somehow didn't get around to it. I certainly don't propose to traverse that area again Mr Chairman, but I do undertake that my attorney will provide both our colleagues with a copy of that document as soon as is convenient for it to be made.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meanwhile I think you could, where you are going to refer to it, to refer to page and paragraph.

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, Mr Chairman. I don't foresee that I will, but if it's necessary, I will do so.

Mr Chairman, dealing then with the incident itself, I do similarly not intend to traverse all the evidence that was given, but in brief, the witnesses du Preez and Wasserman told you that they were instructed to meet Mr Taylor, as it turned out, at a shooting range at Winkelspruit, where they met Taylor and some askaris in the company of Mr Ninela. Col Taylor informed them that Mr Ninela was an activist who had been arrested and that he, that is Taylor, had considered what to do with him and had concluded that he could not charge him, nor could he release him, by virtue of the fact that he would continue with his activities. They both recall that Mr Taylor had told them that Mr Ninela was responsible for previous explosions in the Natal area and that he was arrested according to their recollection, while in possession of a limpet mine.

You heard evidence from Mwelase that when Mr Ninela was arrested, he was not possessed of any weapons of any description. We have no reason to doubt his evidence. Mr Chairman, the submission we make on that score is that it takes the matter no further, one way or the other, because all that Wasserman and du Preez could tell you was what they heard from Mr Taylor.

May I deal immediately with the evidence of the last two witnesses, Mr Chairman? We submit that the only relevance of that evidence is to show that Mr Ninela was not as innocent as might have been suspected when listening to the evidence of his mother, and it's understandable, I don't criticise her at all, for that reason, but it is quite clear that Mr Blessing Ninela was quite involved in activities, political activities, and the one fact that we know for certain is that at one time he had a limpet mine in his possession which he trained the Bhengu brothers on and handed it to them for obvious purposes.

The relevance of that Mr Chairman, is it gives colour to what Taylor had told Wasserman and du Preez. It creates a basis of credibility for what they were told and it also, in our submission, is then easier to understand and to accept when du Preez and Wasserman told you that Taylor was a seasoned policeman and they had no reason at all to doubt his judgment in the matter. So they simply carried out orders.

Mr Chairman there was opposition by family members to the application. At the inception Ms Gabriel told you that the opposition would fall on two legs. Firstly that there was no full disclosure, as intended by the Act and secondly that the act was disproportionate to any political objective sought to be achieved. We make the following submissions immediately from that.

First is that the other requirement of the Act namely that the act, omission or offence had to be associated with a political objective, has not been challenged before you and indeed we submit that it is quite clear that it has been established, particularly within the context, Chairperson of the general background which we argued to you and I can't refer to a specific page because really the whole document deals with it.

Secondly, Mr Chairman, you would have noticed that my learned friend, Ms Gabriel did not direct any cross-examination nor put any statements to either du Preez or Wasserman in regard to proportionality. Again we submit that it is understandable, when viewing proportionality as the Act charges us to do, Mr Chairman within the context of the conflict of the past, this particular matter certainly must pass that test of proportionality and for that statement, for that submission we rely on previous amnesty applications and decisions handed down by various amnesty committees.

Of course, Mr Chairman, the killing of one single human being is always disproportionate and that is clearly why the Act has defined that the proportionality spoken about in Section 20 sub-section 3 has to be adjudicated within the context of the conflict of the past. So viewed Chairperson, we submit that that requirement has also been satisfied.

That leaves us on the opposition side Mr Chairman, with a question of full disclosure. Now the issue of full disclosure relates to all relevant facts, says the Act in Section 20 sub (i) sub (c). Now Mr Chairman, Ms Gabriel put questions in this regard to the witnesses, both du Preez and Wasserman and she started off by suggesting that there are many unanswered questions and when you limited my learned friend to tell us, to put directly what precisely was withheld, she made the following suggestions, (1) that there was a definite relationship between the Security Branch and Mr Ninela (2) that the statements relating to Mr Ninela's union activities were not divulged by the applicants and thirdly Mr Chairman, as we understood it, there was criticism on the basis that the information which is now before the Committee should really have been placed before, not by the family, but by the applicants.

Dealing with those very briefly in turn, we submit as follows. Wasserman and du Preez told you that they had no relationship with Mr Ninela. As it turned out and Wasserman conceded this, is that he may have been present, or may have been the person who arrested Mr Ninela because he told - did I say Wasserman? I mean du Preez, because he told you Mr Chairman, at the time there was a group of people who were arrested and lists were given out to various police officers to assist in the arrests to, as you know from experience, when a group of people had to be arrested, it was always attempted to do so around and about the same time so that warnings could not go out and so on and he said to you that as far as he remembers, he would have arrested him merely on a list and a name, without knowing anything about the background.

Now Mr Chairman, in fact this alleged relationship between the Security Branch and Mr Ninela also is contradicted by the evidence of Mrs Ninela who said that a week after his arrest, she had gone to C R Swart Square police station and asked to see her son, where a uniformed policeman told her that he was suspected of MK activities, which in our submission clearly points to the fact that the CID was busy with him and not necessarily Mr du Preez. If I'm not correct with that submission Mr Chairman, I would refer you to what Mr Blessing Ninela himself says in regard to the Security Branch. He says, Mr Chairman, at page 71 of bundle 2 at the bottom that, this is in a memorandum written to the Minister, that he was arrested on the 23rd, taken to C R Swart Square and he says there he was severely assaulted by a group of white security officers, "one of whom introduced himself as Mr du Preez." Now the question is how far does Mr du Preez, on the assumption of the correctness of this, how far does his association with Mr Ninela run and we can adjudicate that by looking at what he then says. He says, "Mr du Preez informed me on the 25th of January" so that is the 23rd to the 25th and in that time on two occasions apparently, might be more, on his recollection du Preez had something to do with him. On the 25th of January he was informed that he was being detained under the Internal Security Act Section 29. Then other people take over Mr Chairman. Then he goes on to say:

"He, Mr du Preez and the other security members, that is Basson, de Wet and Krause, told me they have reason to believe that I have knowledge of terrorists and arms found in the Inanda house, in the house at Inanda"

and then Mr Chairman, he is transferred to Pinetown and it would appear from his statement that that's the last, on his own show, that du Preez has anything to do with him, is when he was told that he was suspected on the 25th, because then apparently a Capt Krause took over, Mr Chairman, as we read the statement.

Now, the point I'm making here is that on the evidence before you, there does not appear to be independent evidence to corroborate the allegation that there was this relationship which my learned friend spoke about between the Security Forces and Mr Ninela. When asked in evidence about that du Preez said there was no, he has no recollection of him having even been aware of Mr Ninela as an important person in their investigations and we would ask you to accept that Mr Chairman. But, Mr Chairman, the question would be, what is the relevance to your decision whether amnesty is to be granted or not, whether or not there was a special relationship and we would submit, none. If the evidence had been, Taylor called us out, he told us about Ninela, but we knew about this before, that would not have changed the situation at all, Mr Chairman. That would not, in fact it would have made it better for the applicants, in all probability if that had been their evidence, but it isn't.

So we say, Mr Chairman, the first point of deliberately withholding information does not hold water. Then the question of these union activities, du Preez told you that he and Wasserman were in the Intelligence Department in the terrorist section, they had nothing to do with union activities. Sure, there were weapons found in a house which might have brought it under the auspices of the terrorist unit, but du Preez and Wasserman say they know nothing about that. Again, Mr Chairman, it is not a relevant fact. Then Mr Chairman, on the issue of the information which came to hand last week Thursday, now both these witnesses, du Preez as well as Wasserman, are retired police officers, they have no access to documentation with the police. If we had been confronted with this documentation, and this is not a complaint but a matter of fact, earlier, my attorney might have perhaps made inquiries, Mr Chairman. We were quite unaware that Mr Ninela had been arrested. Had we known, we might have made inquiries to see whether there was a Section 29 statement for example, etc. But we did not have that time, we had only Friday which was insufficient time to do a full investigation and apart from that Mr Chairman, Wasserman told you that du Preez and him went and pointed out the scene of the crime and later gave evidence, that is in January 1997 and in July 1997. They were, he was, Wasserman says he was under the impression that the TRC investigation unit was investigating this matter thoroughly.

Now that brings two consequences with it, Mr Chairman. The one is, once the TRC investigation unit is busy with investigations, it would be inappropriate, to say the least for applicants to do their own investigation in the light thereof. We had this once before, Mr Chairman, where we specifically asked for permission to do certain investigations which we believed the investigation unit of the TRC should have done and didn't do and that was a special request we made and his Lordship Justice Miller, sitting as the Chairman of that Committee, that was in the Stanza Bopape matter, gave us the permission. But secondly, Mr Chairman, is it so unreasonable to believe or to think, in the shoes of Wasserman and du Preez, that the matter was now being investigated properly? We submit not, Mr Chairman and therefore on the arguments presented, or the questions put by Ms Gabriel on the issue of non full disclosure, we say that it holds no water, but apart from that, we asked the representative of the family, Mrs Ninela, what does she say what was held back and Mr Chairman you asked her quite a few questions about that, at the end of which it appears that they have a suspicion that there might be something else, but they don't know. We say, Mr Chairman, full disclosure in this matter of relevant facts is the three persons coming forward, Taylor, Wasserman and du Preez to tell you that they participated in the killing of Blessing Ninela. As far as the finer detail is concerned, sure as one would expect there is some measure of dispute, not dispute perhaps dissention, difference, but that does not make it a non disclosure of the relevant facts. We would ask you Chairperson, to find that also, in that regard, the applicants have satisfied you that they have made a fully disclosure. There is certainly nothing in their evidence which is inherently so improbable that their evidence should be rejected and consequently Mr Chairman, we ask you that on that basis alone, amnesty should be favourably considered.

Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mr Bhengu, I've already addressed you on and perhaps I've already made the point sufficiently, Mr Chairman, but both him as well as Mr Ngobese's evidence, really relate to issues which fall outside the scope of your inquiry here because it deals with matters beforehand.

One matter, Mr Chairman, which remains and which I need to address you upon, is the question of differences between the evidence of du Preez and Wasserman on the one hand and the evidence of Mr Taylor.

Now Mr Chairman, Mr Nel has been from the beginning, the attorney who acted for Col Taylor. In the hearing concerning various matters which we refer to as the Ndwandwe hearing, at page 731, when Col Botha is giving evidence, Mr Nel put to him the following. Just below half of the page. "I could put it to you" - well, my attorney says I must start reading from the top of the page.

"And you heard the evidence of Mr Wasserman who testified that he had personal knowledge of Mr Taylor's bad memory and you had something to say about that too.

Botha says, "That is correct."

The Mr Nel says, "And if we have," I'm not going to read that Mr Chairman, I'm going to go to just below half the page where Mr Nel says,

"I could put it to you that during, when he drew up the amnesty application with Adv Botha and myself, Col Taylor had very bad problems with his memory and he could not remember certain things."

Now that accords with the evidence as we understand it, of people who knew what the position or the condition of Mr Taylor was at the end of his days. Now, Mr Chairman, against that background, I would refer you to bundle 1 page 4 where Mr Taylor deals with the killing of Blessing Ninela. Now why it's necessary perhaps to deal with this in this fashion, Mr Chairman, is that my learned friend Ms Gabriel, has put it to the witnesses that they agree with what Taylor says only in so far as it suits them and only in so far as it supports their applications for amnesty. I will demonstrate to you Mr Chairman, that that is far from the truth. If you go through what he says, Mr Chairman, Taylor says:

"the aforementioned was an ANC activist, who was arrested on a mission to Natal."

Now first of all, Chairman, you will immediately observe the difference in the recollection of du Preez and Wasserman on the other hand. They were under the impression, I'm not quite sure what Wasserman said, but du Preez was under the impression that Taylor told them that he was arrested while he was in possession of a limpet mine. I think Wasserman said something slightly different, but it matters not.

"On a mission, being the placing of bombs, myself, Sam du Preez and Laurrie Wasserman realised, on questioning him, that there was no evidence against him which we could take to court although he himself admitted that his mission was the placing of bombs. I decided that the only solution in this case would be to kill him."

Then he says:

"We drove him to a railway line"

and further down he says:

"They, that is du Preez and Wasserman, were instructed to kill him and blow up his body to make it appear as if he blew himself up."

Now if du Preez's attitude was to rely only on the portions of Taylor's evidence which supported his version, in order to obtain amnesty, one must ask yourself, why did he differ from this opinion, from this evidence expressed by Taylor? Because Taylor takes it upon himself that he told them to kill and blow up Blessing Ninela. No, says du Preez, he's recollection's different. He says he thinks that he decided about that. Now on the probabilities Mr Chairman, it's not difficult to believe and I think Commissioner Lax put a question along those lines to du Preez, it's not difficult to - and Commissioner Bosman as well, to believe that Taylor in fact told them to blow him up, it's not difficult to believe that. So if du Preez wanted to be dishonest about it, and wanted to ride on the back of the dead as it was put to them, then this was his chance, Mr Chairman, which he never took and we say that that shows that there is nothing in that suggestion made by my learned friend. But Mr Chairman, Wasserman and Du Preez told you that they believe that Taylor was confused with another incident. That incident Mr Chairman, Taylor describes - Oh, I'm told you haven't got it before you Mr Chairman, which is a pity. relating to the killing of three unknown activists. Perhaps I should just read it to you Mr Chairman. He says, and this refers to the kwaMashu 3 and I will give you further references in a moment.

"I recall that on occasion I arrived at a farm in the Verulam area where Henti Botha was based, carrying on operations against terrorists."

So far so good.

"I was informed that they had three people that they detained who had admitted that they were involved in terrorist activities."

As you will see in a moment that is entirely incorrect, in a certain sense, but I'll come to that.

"And that it had been decided that these people were to be killed due to the fact that there was no admissible evidence available against them. Subsequently we left from the farm and Botha, Sam du Preez and Laurrie Wasserman and other members whose identities I cannot remember, took the people out and went with them in the direction of a railway line in the vicinity of Verulam. A while later they returned and the next day I heard that there had been an explosion on the railway line"

Which is not correct, Mr Chairman as I'll point out in a moment.

"I have no personal knowledge as to whether the people were killed"

That's also entirely incorrect,

"but assume that they were blown up on the railway line and that this was the explosion I heard about."

Now Mr Chairman, Wasserman and du Preez say they believe that's the incident which is confused here. Now if you look at the evidence in regard to that matter presented by Botha in the Ndwandwe amnesty application page 707 and I would read it to you Mr Chairman. Botha says this:

"Chairperson, we made contact with a unit in kwaMashu and one of the informers there infiltrated the unit in order to find information to the identity, their logistics, their infrastructure and so forth. he won their trust and they trusted him with information for planned operations. On 18th November 1988 he reported that the railway line at Phoenix was targeted."

Now Commissioner Lax asked pertinently, this pertinent question, "Why take Ninela to Bulwer, while previously you did the same thing to others at Verulam, much closer?" So, the point here is that the railway line at Phoenix was targeted. Then Mr Chairman, Mr Visser:

"At that date, is that the 18th, is that correct, that the identification occurred?

Mr Botha, "That is correct."

Then he continues:

"Arrangements were made with the informer that he would lead the unit to a specific place where we could arrest him"

and then Mr Chairman, what is important:

"Me, du Preez and Wasserman waited for them at the Avoca bridge. We expected 4 members, only 3 turned up. That made it necessary, Mr Chairman, that these three activists be killed at the spot which they themselves identified because otherwise a 4th person would have immediately known had they been killed at another location."

Over the page, Mr Chairman, we ask:

"Who were they"

and it's stated:

"Sibosiso Ndlovu, Manzi Vilikazi and Elias Gift Ntjali"

Now they were the three people killed, Mr Chairman.

"What did you do there at the Avoca bridge?"

"We arrested them and we went, we transported them with a kombi to a safe-house"

He tells us that that's the same safe-house where Ngobeso was kept, and I ask him:

"Was there anyone there, when you got there?"

"Taylor waited for us at the safe-house. At the safe-house we questioned the three of them."

Now you will recall Taylor says that in Ninela's matter, Wasserman and du Preez questioned Ninela with him, which they say they didn't and they said that he's confusing it with the kwaMashu 3. Here is the evidence, Mr Chairman. There they all questioned him. Then I ask:

"When you arrested them, or captured them, did they have anything with them?"

"Yes, Chairperson, they were in possession of 3 SPM limpet mines with the detonators. The limpet mines were not armed."

"Where were these limpet mines?"

"They were in a carry bag."

Mr Chairman, that deals with two issues where it is quite clear that Taylor was confused. The last issue you will find at page 714 of the evidence, at the bottom of the page where Botha says:

"Everyone, me, du Preez and Wasserman"

I'm sorry, that makes no sense, you've got to read the previous statement, he says they were each armed with a Scorpion, everyone, him, du Preez and Wasserman, then he goes on:

"Whilst Taylor stayed at the kombi, we took the three of them out of the kombi, removed the cuffs and each of us took them by the arm or by the trousers or by the shirt, I cannot remember where, and we walked in the direction of the railway line and thereafter they were asked to identify the spot which they did and they were there killed."

So, the third point is, Mr Taylor was present at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you're labouring this point a little bit much.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'd like to step off it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR VISSER: But it is clear, Mr Chairman, that there is sufficient basis for Wasserman and du Preez to say that they believe that Taylor is mistaken about this.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, having said that then, we submit with respect that - I'm sorry will you grant me a moment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: My attorney doesn't seem to think that I've dealt with it, but I seem to believe that I have, the question of whether Ninela was found in possession - no I have dealt with it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you mentioned it.

MR VISSER: I said that that's neither here nor there, the question here is what Wasserman and du Preez were told and what they recollect of what they were told.

CHAIRPERSON: You know the difficulty in a situation such as this is that Wasserman and du Preez say that Taylor told them that this man had a limpet mine when he was arrested and they go on to say they had no reason to doubt Taylor's evidence at that point. Now, when you heard subsequent evidence that in fact there was no limpet mine on this man when he was arrested and despite that these people say that they had no reason to doubt Taylor's words, puts on a caution light in my mind about how far to accept their evidence.

MR VISSER: Well, the caution should be how far they should have accepted the word of Taylor, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about that and the reliance they place on it.

MR VISSER: Yes. But then one must bear in mind, Mr Chairman, the surrounding evidence, which you've heard, which I've already pointed out to you, that there was certainly a basis for Taylor telling them about the other things that he told them. Certainly also, Mr Chairman, these two people were junior to Taylor and they informed you that it wasn't for them to question Taylor, but apart from that, they say they trusted him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the question is not that, you see. The question is the fact that he was their senior, there's not question that they would accept that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But they say they had no reason to doubt when there was evidence that there was no limpet mine in the possession of the man, Ninela when he was arrested.

MR VISSER: Well, perhaps their faith was misplaced, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: On that point.

MR VISSER: On that point.

CHAIRPERSON: And maybe on other points as well.

MR VISSER: Well, no other points have occurred to us, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, why not? They rely on what Taylor says, that there is no evidence on which I can charge this man, there's no reason why I should release him and they rely on all that, because Taylor tells them that. Why should they accept Taylor's evidence on that?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, but that still boils down to the question of whether he was in possession of the limpet mine, or not.

CHAIRPERSON: It's all tied up with this question of reliance, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They rely on Taylor on a point where quite clearly Taylor was not telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect, Taylor's intimation to them that the man will continue with his activities, there's nothing before you to suggest that that was incorrect or ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, there might be a point there. The argument that there was no reason why we couldn't charge him.

MR VISSER: Yes, I take that point, Mr Chairman, I take that point. Now the question is...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Blindly accept Taylor on that point, it's almost like them reciting a verse which they had memorised and repeated, that Taylor said this as justification why this man should be killed. Now, if Taylor were himself applying for amnesty, there might be a great deal to be said against him. We are now dealing with people who carried out the relevant instructions. I understand, but it does raise the question of whether they were justified in implicitly believing everything Taylor said.

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely Mr Chairman, but you will recall that we presented argument to you before that in the situation in which members of the Security Forces found themselves, being under pressure as they were, to bring the situation to normality, being faced with the type of political violence which they were faced with and dealing with the execution of orders, we in fact submitted to you that on many occasions subordinates did not question orders, Mr Chairman, because it was just not done. You've heard that evidence many times.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that.

MR VISSER: Yes, and perhaps, I say again, perhaps Mr du Preez and Mr Wasserman might have been naive to believe so implicitly in what Taylor says, but on the other hand, Mr Chairman, unless there is clear evidence that Taylor had lied to them, then Mr Chairman, with respect, one can't draw that inference and you see Taylor says, does not say that the man was caught in possession with a limpet mine, he says he was on a mission to Natal and that mission being the placing of bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: They said Taylor told them.

MR VISSER: That's what they say, that's their recollection, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We've got the other unfortunate position where they both used the phrase that their recollection is weak and they researched the matter. If they researched the matter, the question is, what research? So here you have two fantastic examples of two chaps exchanging their ignorances. Isn't that what it boils down to?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes clearly no research in the sense of documentary research could be done and in that sense it's an unfortunate choice of word, but one must not depart from the proposition that at the time when they hurriedly filed their application a day before the cut-off date in 1996 in December, that they knew nothing about this incident. What they told you in their evidence was that sure, we remembered the incidents but we had difficulty in placing the incident in context with the correct personalities, That was their problem, so instead of taking a chance as it were and giving you facts at the time, at the time which may turn out later, they simply said, "we will research the matter" well his attorney said "we will research the matter". What does that mean? It means, we will see whether we can sort out exactly what happened in this incident and who was involved. Now the only research they could possibly have done was to talk to each other about it, Mr Chairman and to talk to Mr Taylor about it and this they say they did. That's the research they're talking about, with respect.

ADV BOSMAN: But Mr Visser, surely the probability and we shouldn't venture into an area of speculation, but the probability is that Taylor had mentioned a limpet mine, but not that it was found on the person at that time and afterwards your two clients, who admitted that they were both vague in their recollection, put this together, bona fide perhaps, but it is possible that Taylor had not said to them that he had a limpet mine on him.

MR VISSER: I fully concede that. It would be wrong for me not to concede that. We're talking about events which took place 11 years ago, Mr Chairman and you as a seasoned judge know that people reconstruct and if I were to submit to you that you didn't listen to a fair amount of reconstruction, I would not be honest with you. No clearly, Mr Chairman, but what I would submit to you is not to place too much emphasis on the use of the word research, they had no research available to them other than to talk to each other and clearly to reconstruct matters. Now one thing that is clear from du Preez's evidence is that Taylor gave them a limpet mine together with Mr Ninela and as Commissioner Bosman has just put to me, isn't this the logical inference, which today du Preez will come and give evidence about? He will assume that it was found in the possession of Ninela, which is a logically human inference to draw Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That's just a possibility.

MR VISSER: It's a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: But the way the evidence was given was not that. The way the evidence was give was, they were told that this man was found in possession of a limpet mine.

MR VISSER: Yes. I'm just arguing the point as to why they would have told you that. It's because the limpet mine and Ninela were given to them in a package. Again that, for example, Mr Chairman, just to show how cautious one has to be, supports the evidence of Mr Taylor in that regard, where he says he told them to go and kill him and blow him up. That's why he gave them the limpet mine. So, Mr Chairman, with great respect, it is true that there must be a measure of reconstruction, people are giving evidence about what happened a long time ago, but unless you can find that what they are telling you is blatantly false, Mr Chairman, with respect, the test must be that before you can hold it against them of not having made full disclosure and to come to the equation of falsity is non disclosure, it must be falsity in that sense, the sense of deliberately coming to you in order to mislead you and that Chairman, with great respect, we say that these applicants certainly did not do. They manifested themselves as witnesses who attempted to tell you all they knew, albeit on a question of reconstruction and recollection, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I believe that I might have ended, or come to the end of my submissions, I have not looked at my notes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll give you another chance if you really think that it's something very pertinent that you've left out.

MR VISSER: Yes. I was going to suggest Mr Chairman, perhaps if you wish to take the adjournment now until quarter past.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd rather we carry on.

MR VISSER: Alright can I ask you a few seconds just to look through my notes Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But you may look through it and if you think that you want to raise a point at a later stage I'll allow you that. Mr Rorich, have you anything to say at this stage?

MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I'll be very brief.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you will have an opportunity. Is there anything material which you feel that you have left out, you may do so at a convenient stage.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just trying to save time, so we can carry on in the meanwhile.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich.

MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chairperson as I said, I will be brief on this issue.

MR RORICH IN ARGUMENT: I submit that the application for amnesty should be successful in this matter. The reason for that is being that the abduction was done under the orders from either Myeza, or Col Taylor, this was elicited in evidence. The political objectives sought by the applicant abducting the deceased was in furtherance of the objectives of his commanding officers, being the maintainers of the security of the Government of South Africa and the action was against a possible enemy of the state at that time.

The abduction clearly falls in the context of the struggles of the past. I think this is beyond dispute. There has been full disclosure on all the aspects. This is confirmed by the other applicants who acknowledge the abduction by the askaris and Mrs Ninela herself who confirms the applicant's version in that the applicant was at the house, he did drop off a note. Even the contents of the note were verified. That was the meeting in Pinetown. There was doubt as to the time, but I submit that's irrelevant for the purposes.

The applicant's version of the drop-off point of the abducted person, Blessing Ninela in Port Shepstone, the other applicants refer to that as a shooting range. The other applicants also confirm that Mr Mwelase was not a member of the team that murdered Blessing Ninela. In actual fact they confirm that he wasn't there at all.

Mr Chairperson, with all due respect, Mr Mwelase hasn't changed in any meaningful aspect. The applicant was an employee of the state, even if that was under the auspices of the Security Police as it was then. It is clear that the applicant had no autonomy of his own and acted under orders. He verified it was either Col de Kock at one stage which is ... (indistinct) for these purposes, or Col Taylor and in fact the applicant never knew of the death of Col Taylor until now. Even though the applicant may not have believed it was legal, he nevertheless believed that it was with authority and therefore in the course of his duty. In actual fact if he didn't do it, he knew what the consequences of that would be due to his experience with the Security Forces.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't catch that point, what was this? What is the point you're seeking to make there?

MR RORICH: Mr Chairperson, I said that even although the applicant may not have believed it was legal, he nevertheless believed it was with authority and therefore in the course of his duty, due to the experience with the Security Forces in the past.

The applicant's motive for the matter, as stressed before, is either coercion or fear, was in reaction to a bomb blast which may be irrelevant for the purposes of the abduction and was during the peak of the struggle and the abduction was to obtain information. To his best knowledge the abduction was not to murder, only for the sake of gaining information.

The applicant did receive financial remuneration from the state, but he received no reward for this. The applicant stated to this Commission that he received beers, whether that can be classified as a reward he doesn't know.

The applicant did not act out of malice, as I established before the Commission. He didn't even know the deceased's name until the TRC hearings began.

In respect of proportionality, I would submit that the abduction was just a furtherance of the arrest, whether it was legal or illegal to him would have made not difference, he was just following orders at that stage.

On these grounds, it is submitted the applicant should be successful in the amnesty and I would like to point out to the Commission that the probabilities are in the applicant's favour in this regard. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Gabriel.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, before Ms Gabriel goes on, there are one or two points that I'd forgotten about and perhaps it's better that I mention them before Ms Gabriel argues.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do, yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman on two matters, Mr du Preez had been implicated, the one is assaulting Mr Ninela at a previous arrest in 1987 and the other as having pretended to be an attorney in order to question Mr Bengu. Well, Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mr Bhengu is weak in that regard and it is denied. Mr du Preez could not remember even the incident of the arrest of Mr Ninela and consequently he couldn't deny that he ever assaulted him. What he did say is that he certainly can't remember it. That's the furthest a witness in that position can do Mr Chairman and we submit that you would find in both these instances that insufficient evidence has been brought before you in order to make a finding that he in fact did either assault Mr Ninela or pretend to be an attorney. And secondly, Mr Chairman, again we say that, with respect, that has nothing to do with the present application and the ambit within which you move.

Mr Chairman, the other issue which I neglected to mention on the point of whether there were other alternatives which Taylor could have followed and the question of the limpet mine either being in possession of Mr Ninela or not found later etc is this, certainly the Committee will consider the evidence to scrutinise whether an applicant before you in his evidence had not given evidence which is so illogical and inherently improbable that you cannot accept his evidence and you have to draw the inference that he attempted to mislead you. That is one issue, but of course one must not confuse oneself by thinking that in all these cases it was necessary in order to obtain amnesty that the person had to consider alternatives. That certainly is not the spirit of the Act, in fact Mr Chairman, it has been expressed as follows in the past. The applicant is not here to justify his actions, far from it, he committed a crime and part of his crime might well be that he should have prosecuted rather than to kill the man, in fact in most cases it will probably be like that Mr Chairman and I just wanted to make that point and then lastly the point which I forget is the point that Mr du Preez made on the issue of the limpet mine and where Taylor might have got it from when he handed Ninela over to him and Wasserman. He says that "For all I know, if I have to speculate, Taylor could have assaulted the man. In fact there is an allegation by the one witness here that he was assaulted by Taylor. Taylor could have assaulted the man to point out the limpet mine in which event again one would then say, well under those circumstances, can he now take the man and have him prosecuted through the normal channels? Also Mr Chairman, we don't know exactly when Mr Ninela had been arrested and how long he had already been held unlawfully after the abduction. All these matters. Mr Taylor could have told us, could have filled us in on, Mr Chairman, and the difficulty which you and we have is that he is unfortunately not here in order to assist with these matters but I ask you not to hold it then against Wasserman and du Preez and their evidence. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, I have about 10 minutes of submissions to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Make them.

MS GABRIEL IN ARGUMENT: The first is that the problem in this case as we suggested was with full disclosure. Full disclosure is not necessarily limited to just a portrayal of the relevant facts, but as was apparent from my cross-examination, full disclosure in this case must mean something more than selective disclosure.

Let me start with the application of the 4th applicant. At this point the family wishes to state quite clearly that they have no opposition to the amnesty application of the 4th respondent, 4th applicant, pardon me. They are satisfied that he has made a full disclosure and that his objectives at the time were proportionally related to the instructions that he had received. His versions of events have been consistent and they were made at the earliest possible opportunity. As against that we have two versions set apart by some two and a half years submitted by the second applicant and the third applicant.

What's interesting in these applications is that they seek to distinguish their earlier versions about not recalling detail and suddenly in the second application recall a massive amount of detail when confronted with evidence by the family, seem to recall it and then when confronted by questioning recall even more details including what we were thinking at the time.

So apart from distinguishing the fact that they could not remember earlier, they also seek to distinguish Taylor's version. They point out that Taylor gave them the order. They point out that Taylor was mistaken in believing that, and I quote:

"Myself, du Preez and Laurrie Wasserman realised on questioning him that there was no evidence which we could take to court, although he himself admitted that his mission was the placing of bombs."

The question is why? Why seek to distinguish these other aspects of Taylor's evidence? On Taylor's version we see that the objective was to eliminate, not because of a lack of evidence, not merely because of a lack of evidence, but not because this man was suspected to be of serious and imminent danger, suspected to be a terrorist, but that is Taylor's version and he is dead and we will never know. By seeking to distinguish this, what the applicants have done is to extract themselves out of all complicity in the planning and in the execution of Ninela's death.

What they have done is to confine themselves very clearly to the limited ambit of taking instructions and the minute they do that they are exonerated from having to explain the basis of their actions. They are exonerated from having to explain whether the manner in which they reacted at that point, was justifiable and proportional in the circumstances. So that, on my submission, is really the basis on which they seek to distinguish Taylor's evidence.

Now the explanation we are given, one of the explanations we are given is that Taylor had a bad memory. If that is so, it is highly unlikely that he would remember detail. It is highly unlikely that he would remember that the applicants were in fact with him. It is more probable that a man suffering from lack of memory or bad memory would in fact remember very little.

CHAIRPERSON: It may be also not just remembering little, it may be a jumbling of information, confusion of facts from one case with the facts of another case. That might have happened as well.

MS GABRIEL: I take that point Mr Chair, but on my submission it is highly unlikely that Taylor would confuse a group of three or four people with the very simple, very effective killing of one person.

If I may move on. So my submission is that the act of distinguishing this evidence, has been designed to protect them from answering any further questions. Now I want to point out Mr Chairman that the applicants are bringing an application for amnesty for the killing of a citizen of this country. There is no onus on the mother of that man, that deceased man, to convince you that the applicants are lying. The onus is on the applicants to present a full disclosure so that the reasons for his death not just the manner of his death, are well understood.

The witnesses led by the family clearly establish that there were very solid grounds on which Mr Ninela could have been prosecuted. Both with respect to the death of the Bengu, son of Bengu and secondly with respect to the presence of weapons at the house in Inanda. That has never been a dispute and the witnesses led by the family were very very clear that he was implicated in that. The problem is on the versions presented by the applicants, and that is, we were following orders, they do not come up to be challenged against that. All we can do is perhaps now at this stage, to question Taylor who is dead. That particular aspect can never be challenged. So I would point out that the full disclosure emanates not so much from the fact that Mrs Ninela couldn't point to aspects of their evidence that were missing, but from the fact that at the earliest possible opportunity, they could not remember. When they could remember, they remembered enough to distinguish and when they did remember it was a very selective disclosure. They would reveal and did reveal no more than was necessary to support the version that they were carrying out orders. Subsequently when the family had access to the amplified application and compared it with the first application, they realised that there was more than met the eye in these applications and on that basis went out and secured the further information, which then was presented to the applicants and suddenly they could remember.

If I may just move through specific points in the evidence of the second and third applicants. Apart from the obvious contradictions with Taylor, what I point out as significant and I submit is significance is this miraculous burst of memory in the intervening two and a half year period. Minute details are recalled, such as the fact that he was apparently picked up with a limpet mine, they remember details of who shot and who blew him up, they remembered details of, Wasserman recalls details of what he was thinking at the time, he was thinking when du Preez blew him up that this is a good thing, because people then will not identify him and believe that he has gone to Swaziland. How is it then that such minute detail can be recalled at this very, very late stage?

In evidence and under cross-examination Wasserman says he did not talk to Taylor before preparing his first application. Both of the first applications incorporate paragraphs from Taylor's application and I refer the Committee to pages 20 and 36 of the first bundle. It is clear that these applications were made at the same time and in concert.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give me again what pages.

MS GABRIEL: 20 and 36. And I would refer you on page 20 specifically to paragraph 10(a) incorporating paragraph 10 (a) from page 5. Similarly with page 36.

CHAIRPERSON: 36 of which volume is this?

MS GABRIEL: Pardon me, bundle 1.

MR LAX: Sorry when you refer to page 5, which page 5 are you talking about? I read it there but does that not refer to the very same application which is on page 15 of that bundle?

MS GABRIEL: I must stand corrected, it would appear that the mistake is mine and that I had made the cross reference. So then I do not rely on the fact that Wasserman must have spoken to Taylor before making his first application.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS GABRIEL: I want to suggest that it's highly improbable that they would not have spoken to Taylor before making the application given that they were all applying for the same set of events and for the same sets of killings and given the fact that they subsequently realised that Taylor had in fact made several mistakes. On this - my basic submission is that the amnesty applications and this has been the basis of the family's objection, the amnesty applications have limited the disclosure of what they knew and how they were involved to aspects on which they know they cannot be questioned on. For as long as they distinguish Taylor's evidence, they do not have to justify the proportionality, they do not have to justify any personal knowledge of Ninela. At that point they can simply remember, yes, well perhaps I met him in prison, but du Preez then is forced to say that Ninela is lying about the torture because he doesn't want to reveal that there was in fact a prior relationship between them.

Even if my submission is rejected on that score, I submit that there are still problems with the versions presented by the applicants. If the order was to execute, if as they say, the order came from Taylor to execute, why desecrate the body? Why blow up the head? Why blow up the hands? We had du Preez who said one of the purposes in blowing him up was to serve as a deterrent. If indeed they were blowing up an MK soldier, they would want that presumably to be known the ANC. Wasserman says that he thought that the explosive was a good idea because then no identity would be possible and people would think that he had left to Swaziland. How is it then that on Mwelase's evidence, Taylor had the same belief, or fed Mwelase the same story that Ninela was in Swaziland? I want to suggest that this was part of a much broader plan and that Wasserman's sudden recollection points at some measure, to a much more organised and deliberate execution of Mr Ninela than we are given to believe.

Du Preez, having distinguished Taylor's evidence, states in his second application that he had not personal knowledge of Ninela's activities. That is what prompted the family to go out and investigate and that is what prompted the family and the investigators to discover that indeed there were documents that showed a very traumatic and a very early relationship between du Preez and Ninela. Even so, du Preez seeks to distinguish the references to torture. There is no reason for Ninela to have falsely implicated du Preez. The problem is that du Preez must now stick to his version that he couldn't recall Ninela and to the extent that he could recall him, well he wasn't an exceptional personality. If anything the documents show not that it's directly relevant now on their version, but the documents show that the legal machinery was partly employed and that it could have continued to be employed against Mr Ninela.

I submit that on the evidence that has been placed by both sides, the entire modus operandi surrounding the death of Mr Ninela is strange. On the evidence presented and as the evidence recalled by the applicants, the profile of Ninela is not that of an ANC military operator. It's not that of an ANC terrorist. Why then...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He appears to have been keen to go overseas, when he was approached by these two people and made an appointment to meet them at the post office.

MS GABRIEL: Well we have no idea on what basis they approached him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the fact of the matter is he did show some interest in it at that stage.

MS GABRIEL: The question is why. If he was an MK activist, why did he not have more, anything more than ever one limpet mine? Why did he tell Mwelase that he had no more weapons?

CHAIRPERSON: No, we're talking about something else. We're talking about apparent willingness on his part to take the advice of these two chaps who said they were going to take him overseas and he was prepared to go along with them and prepared to meet them, not knowing of course at that stage that this was a trap, but an indication of his mental attitude towards the idea of going overseas.

MS GABRIEL: But Mr Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: It he was completely non-political, ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, it has never been, with respect, it's never been the case that he was completely non-political, it's never been the case that he did not belong to a political party, the question is whether the evidence shows that this man was something more than a sympathiser, something more than a person who had one limpet mine and was found with one limpet mine at some point in his life. The question is really whether Ninela could be linked to definite political ANC activities, military activities.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that limpet mines are not to be found in every house in that area, you know. The fact that a limpet mine was and he is connected with a limpet mine, now that's un undisputed fact on your evidence.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, yes it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, so it is an important factor indicating that this chap was not a pacifist.

MS GABRIEL: But did it indicate that he was a terrorist on a bombing mission?

CHAIRPERSON: No, he may not have been on a mission. He might not have had a chance of being on a mission, it might be an exaggeration to say that he was on a mission. Yes, we're merely saying (a) he was found in possession of a limpet mine.

MS GABRIEL: There is clearly, Mr Chair, there is clearly enough evidence led by the family, that he was not innocent, that he was linked to very definite and specific events. Ultimately the question is, if you consider that even on Wasserman's evidence, this man was not a well-known figure, did he deserve to be treated in this way? Did he deserve to have his face and his hands and his entire being obliterated? The question is on the limited evidence presented to us, we can't understand why it is that he was treated this way.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you know I think that first of all what is important is not the fact that he was obliterated, the important fact is that he was murdered. You see. Why his body was obliterated, there were all kinds of twisted logic behind that and we have different reasons given...

MS GABRIEL: I do understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: As to why that was done. Really, why? Was his crime so serious that he should be killed? You see? Why should it be? Here is a man, all that they know about him is that he gave a limpet mine to one of the children, one of the boys. He could have been tried and convicted. There was evidence of the person to whom he have the mine, to come and say.

MS GABRIEL: The problem though, Mr Chair, is that on the format and the style of the applicants' amnesty application, they don't get to be asked those questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Their version is they were following instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, what can you do about that?

MS GABRIEL: What I do about that is to show you why they seek to distinguish Taylor's version and to argue that this is improbable.

CHAIRPERSON: That's just a theory, isn't it? That's just a theory. These chaps are junior officers who take instructions from Taylor, who everybody acknowledges was the political person in charge of terrorism in Natal. They get called in from time to time. In this particular instance they were called in, they were told eliminate this chap. They were willing henchmen and willing to eliminate him.

MS GABRIEL: But the question is and perhaps this ties in with your point Mr Chair, if that was the instruction and if they were following the instruction and if we are to believe everything that they say in their application is or are the relevant facts, why destroy the identity? Why more out of the jurisdiction? What were they trying to hide?

CHAIRPERSON: They were trying to avoid the identity of a man, one of the many that the police have killed. You see if there wasn't this Amnesty Committee in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we might not have heard all this in any case. Yes. There must have been many others who have been killed about whom we'll never hear, so the idea was kill one person and that's the end of the matter. Why should it be made known who you are killing? Why should it be known to others? Let them believe he's overseas.

MS GABRIEL: In Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm not saying that they were justified in doing what they did.

MS GABRIEL: Well, on the evidence we have heard and perhaps it's not really fair, but I submit that on the evidence we have heard, we have not heard the profile of an ANC terrorist. Having been linked to the Bhengu murder one would have thought that an MK terrorist would have gone into hiding immediately, not wait to be abducted or wait to be met by MK terrorists a week later.

CHAIRPERSON: Well quite clearly on the evidence of the witness that you've called, the person who served a term on Robben Island, who said that as far as he's concerned he was not a terrorist.

MS GABRIEL: He could never link him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to any terrorist activities as such. The high water mark against him was not that he was a terrorist, the high water mark against him is that at one stage he was found in possession of a limpet mine.

MS GABRIEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's as far as it goes.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, and whether that's really justifiable for the end that he met, but then we don't have Mr Taylor before us. If we are to accept the very clever distinguishing that has been presented to you by the first and the second applicant.

My final submissions are these, that the applicants have not made a full disclosure and that is not because we cannot present evidence to the contrary.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that.

MS GABRIEL: But that is because they have presented very limited evidence, have suddenly recalled miraculous details and have left out ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I hope - they've now recalled miraculous details. Does that mean that they've now made full disclosure?

MS GABRIEL: Well the question is, what more don't we know? And that is the basis on which the Ninela family says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And how are we going to know? You see this Committee has a problem. How do we deal with facts like that when we don't know, you see. I mean it's always a possibility to advance an argument that we don't know this that and the other. There are things which we'll never know. We have to deal with the facts as we know them and unless we can prove a lie, which can throw some light on motive, then you reject all that evidence of one person or the other.

MS GABRIEL: I take the point, Mr chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MS GABRIEL: So that was my first submission.

Amnesty, I would also submit, is my final submission, that if indeed the instruction was to execute, were they justified in desecrating the body? Were they justified in blowing it beyond all recognition? At the very least they should not be indemnified for that gross action.

Those are my submissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Is there anything you wish to say?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.

NO ARGUMENT BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel did I understand you correctly to say that you are anxious because of some other developments that have taken place, to be excused?

MS GABRIEL: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now I ask that because I have a choice of adjourning at this stage and taking a break, the usual break at this stage and calling upon Mr Visser and Mr Rorich in case they have anything to add, to reply, but I think we might be able to dispose of that within the next few minutes. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: It will be very brief, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, reply please.

MR VISSER: Perhaps if it's convenient then Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER IN REPLY: My learned friend says that full disclosure of the relevant facts isn't what is necessary. Section 20 (i)(c) says

"If the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty is satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty."

My learned friend can't extend the provisions and requirements of the Act, Mr Chairman.

Secondly Mr Chairman, my learned friend says that, apparently departs from the point of view, I should say, that what the applicants must show is that this was a terrorist, and that he was an eminent danger to society etc etc, well, that's not necessary, Mr Chairman. And we know that because the whole of Section 20 sub-section (ii) deals with that and Section 22 (b) which is the relevant sub-section Mr Chairman, talks of any member of the Security Forces, leaving out unnecessary words,

"Forces, any member of the Security Forces who acts within the scope of his express or implied authority directed against a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement engaged etc, etc or against members of supporters of such organisation or movement and which was committed bona fide with the object of countering or otherwise resisting the said struggle..."

Now that was the evidence and that is sufficient Mr Chairman. We don't have to prove that Mr Ninela was a terrorist.

My learned friend said that there's an onus on the applicants, Mr Chairman, I don't want to go through that argument again, with respect, no decision has been handed down, but quite clearly the argument has been accepted that there is no question of onuses in an inquiry such as this before you and you deal with matters which you find have been established whatever way, Mr Chairman.

My learned friend makes a point of remembering nothing at the time when the amnesty applications were signed and now suddenly and miraculously remembering all the detail, all this finer detail which includes who shot, who blew him up, etc. Now Mr Chairman, we submit it's an exaggerated submission. It starts with a wrong premise. The wrong premise would be, as I've already argued that they knew nothing about this incident when they signed the original application form. That is not the evidence. They told you that they had difficulty in distinguishing various events and the victims, Mr Chairman, and that is what they wanted to establish. With great respect, my learned friend is departing from the point of view that they knew nothing then and then suddenly out of the blue they had all this information is not based on the evidence before you.

"Why blow them up?" asks my learned friend. Mr Chairman, you perhaps gave a better answer than I could and that is that the motivations of people who acted the way they did in the time of strife during the conflict, can't now be judged by lawyers sitting in a quiet room, particularly with an armchair approach. As was testified to before the Human Rights Violations Committee and I believe Mr Lax was a Commissioner at the time, or a member of that Committee, by APLA, by the ANC, by everybody to say that we acted in that time on the spur of the moment, we didn't have time to reconsider. We, thinking back today, we would never have done that, thinking back about it clearly, now they say, Mr Chairman, they thought they had to cover their tracks. Now what is so wrong with that? And the way to stop identification although it is cruel and crude, is to take away a man's face and to take away his fingerprints. Now there's nothing special about that, Mr Chairman, with great respect, we can disagree with it and we can be abhorred by it, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is so.

Mr Chairman, again this matter of should have been prosecuted was brought up. One must just think, Mr Chairman, and this was perhaps the reason why Mr Bhengu's evidence was presented here, in order to show you that the police had a clear case against Mr Ninela, well, was it such a clear case? If they wanted to prosecute Mr Ninela because of the limpet mine he had handed to the Bhengu brothers, who would they have used as a witness? This witness that gave evidence here today? That would have been the one and only star witness. Would he have been prepared coming from the background where he came from, to go and give evidence against his friend and comrade Mr Ninela? We submit on the probabilities not, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But didn't he tell the police? Didn't he tell Taylor in hospital that Ninela gave him the mine?

MR VISSER: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why would he do that if he wanted to conceal this?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman he would still have had to give evidence and he would still have experienced the pressures from the community.

CHAIRPERSON: He may have.

MR VISSER: He may have, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There are lots of others who have given evidence despite pressures.

MR VISSER: Absolutely. All I'm saying, Mr Chairman, it's not that clear and it might not have been clear to Taylor that it would have been plain sailing if he prosecuted Ninela. That might be one of the considerations, and again we're speculating, why Taylor said "I can't prosecute the man."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you see the enormity of taking away a man's life is what is the factor that is taken into account weighed against whether he should be prosecuted or not, do you understand? The chances are that he might be acquitted.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So now why take a chance? Kill him. Is that how it's done?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, that is part of the conflict of the past. Many people on both sides were killed for less reasons than we today would do far less to persons. That is the reality of the situation, Mr Chairman. Yes, when one thinks about it on the basis of normal society, the killing of one person, as I said before, is unjustifiable, but what we're talking about here, Mr Chairman and you'll remember the case of Steyn who received amnesty as the ultimate example, where he was given instructions to take a man to hospital. He then decided that he's been looking for this man for so long, he's not going to go through that terrible ordeal again. He takes him behind a bush and he shoots him. Now those were the terrible facts of our past Mr Chairman, which the Interim Constitution charges us to reconcile with each other through the process of amnesty and it is sometimes difficult, of course it is, but those are the realities, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, just to put one matter straight. My learned friend seems to assume that Mr Taylor, because he's amnesty application went in the same time as du Preez and Wasserman, did that in cahoots or together with Wasserman. It's not true. Wasserman and du Preez did their amnesty applications through attorneys Wagener and Muller in Pretoria, while Mr Taylor did his through Mr Nel. Mr Nel can confirm that, Mr Chairman.

Now my learned friend says that du Preez was forced to deny that he assaulted Ninela. Well that is not his evidence. He says that he can't remember and he can take it no further than that. For a man who can't remember, he can't say, Mr Chairman.

Now we find it very strange that my learned friend says that after they heard what the applicant said, they went to do research and they found the documents which they placed before you. Now referring to those documents, Mr Chairman, you heard my learned friend say this morning that the brother of Mr Ninela wishes to come and give evidence to say that the applications for the release of Mr Ninela was within his custody, so that would suppose, with Mr Chairman, that he had it all along. It wouldn't have been something which he had gone to look for now because of anything that the applicant said, with great respect.

Yes, so to round up, Mr Chairman, it is not for the applicant to show that Mr Ninela was anything more than what my learned friend refers to as a sympathiser. We prefer to refer to as a supporter of a political organisation and with that Mr Chairman, I again repeat my request that you consider the applications favourably.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rorich, in the light of the confession made by counsel for the victims and so on, there's not need for your to reply. No argument has been made against your client, unless there is something very important that you wish to say?

MR RORICH: I have nothing to add Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO ARGUMENT BY MR RORICH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

The Committee will consider it's decision and in due course make it known to the interested parties. We will now adjourn for 45 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS