CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record it is Wednesday the 17th of November 1999. It's the continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee at the Durban Christian Centre. The Panel is constituted as would be apparent from the record. The matter on the role this morning is the amnesty application of Albert Sbangeliso Maseko. The amnesty reference number is AM0589/96. Just for the record, I'm going to ask the legal representatives to place themselves on the record. Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman. I confirm my appearance on behalf of the amnesty applicant, Albert Sbangeliso Maseko. My full names are S. Panday.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And then the Leader of Evidence.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Zuko Mapoma, the Leader of Evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Yes, Mr Panday, do you want your client to take the oath?
MR PANDAY: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
ALBERT SBANGELISO MASEKO: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, is it correct that you are currently a prisoner at Ngome prison?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: And that you have been serving a sentence of 12 years since the year of 1993?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, do you know what sentence you are serving at Ngome Prison?
MR MASEKO: Yes.
MR PANDAY: Right. Could you please tell the Committee what offence or offences you committed to serve these sentences?
MR MASEKO: Two cases of attempted murder.
MR PANDAY: And where did these incidents take place?
MR MASEKO: They took place in ...(indistinct) in the Table Mountain district.
MR PANDAY: And Mr Maseko, were you a resident of that area?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I did in the Nqalika area in Swamane.
MR PANDAY: And is it also correct that you seek amnesty for the two offences that you've been found guilty of?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko, could you explain to this Committee as to how you found yourself being convicted for the two counts of attempted murder?
MR MASEKO: The reason I was arrested was because I was found in possession of a stolen vehicle. When I went to court on the 5th of March 1993, I came upon Kudas Kakane and they were the people who identified me as the perpetrator in the two attempted murder charges.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko, with regards to the attempted murder that took place on the 29th of September 1992, this incident took place in the Table Mountain area and what I'd like for you to explain to the Committee is why you attempted to attack or attempt to murder the people in that area.
MR MASEKO: The reason for attempting to attack Thulane Mkhize was because we did not see eye to eye with regards to political organisations, as between the IFP and the ANC. I am a member of the ANC and he was a member of the IFP.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, you mentioned that you are a member of the ANC and the attack that was launched against Thulane Mkhize, he is a member of the IFP. Now what prompted you to attack Thulane Mkhize?
MR MASEKO: The reason was that we had political differences. For instance when we held meetings, they would come attack us, shoot at us and our meeting would be disrupted. In that way attacks then started taking place between the two organisations.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko, is it correct to assume that Thulane Mkhize affected the promotion of your organisation, the ANC?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I could put it that way.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, being an ANC member, did you hold any specific position in the ANC?
MR MASEKO: I did not hold a position but I was the Chair of the youth in the area.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko on the day that you went to attack Thulane Mkhize, did you know that there would be policemen or any other person on his premises?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I did have knowledge that he was under police protection or guard.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko on the day of the attack, or when you went to attack, did anyone give you a particular order to attack this place?
MR MASEKO: Yes, we usually held meetings in the Pietermaritzburg area. On the day that I carried out the attack, I had received instruction.
MR PANDAY: Who did you receive instruction from?
MR MASEKO: The person was Nkleku Mathe.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the surname?
MR MASEKO: Mathe. M-A-T-H-E.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko do you know of the whereabouts of Mr Martin now?
MR MASEKO: I heard something to the effect that he had passed away around 1995 or 1996. I'm just not certain of the year.
MR PANDAY: And Mr Maseko what position did this Mr Martin hold in the organisation?
MR MASEKO: He was the Chairperson of the ANC in Nqalika.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, on the day of the 29th, the morning that you went to attack the residence of Thulane Mkhize, did you go there alone, or were you accompanied by others?
MR MASEKO: I was in the company of other people.
MR PANDAY: How many others?
MR MASEKO: There were 6 of us who were armed and the rest had spears. In total there were 11 of us.
MR PANDAY: And do you know the names of the ten of you, including yourself?
MR MASEKO: I can remember some names.
MR PANDAY: The names that you can remember, will you please give that to the Committee.
MR MASEKO: Mbongeni Nthuli, Thembelane Mathe, Sipho Shelembe, Celo Makai, Singosele Mkhize and myself.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, do you know what has become of the people whose names you have mentioned to the Committee?
MR MASEKO: Because of my incarceration at Ngome, I have been unable to get into contact with them. I'm not even sure whether they're still alive or not.
ADV BOSMAN: If I can just come in here. Were you the only one to be charged and convicted of this offence, or these offences rather?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, the firearms that were used in this attack, could you firstly give the Committee a description of the weapons that were used, or what type of weapons that were used?
MR MASEKO: There was one AK47, two 303's, one 308 and one shotgun.
MR PANDAY: And what weapon were you carrying Mr Maseko?
MR MASEKO: I carried an AK47 but we rotated the firearms amongst us.
CHAIRPERSON: These others, the 303 and 308, are those rifles?
MR MASEKO: The big firearms.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just for clarity, I'm not too sure if Mr Chairman wants to confirm whether there were more automatic weapons or ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well whatever information you have.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko the 08 and 303, were these automatic weapons?
MR MASEKO: No, there were two automatic firearms, the AK47 and the other one.
MR PANDAY: So you had in your possession an AK47, an R1, two 303 rifles, one 308 and one shotgun, is that correct?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko, first where did you and the others obtain these weapons from?
MR MASEKO: I obtained them from the ANC in Maqongqo and I transported them to Nqalika.
MR PANDAY: And who in the ANC at Maqongqo did give you these firearms?
MR MASEKO: I got them from Baba Mahladla.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Interpreter, just spell these places names for me.
INTERPRETER: Maqongqo would be M-A-Q-O-N-G-Q-O
CHAIRPERSON: And the other one?
INTERPRETER: Nqalika, N-Q-A-L-I-K-A
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Sorry Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman. And Mr Maseko, what was the position of Baba Mahladla in the ANC?
MR MASEKO: He was the ANC Chairperson at Table Mountain.
MR PANDAY: And would you happen to know how he was able to get hold of all these firearms?
MR MASEKO: No, I do not know how and where he got hold of them. I would just receive them from him and he would give them to me to protect the community.
MR PANDAY: And Mr Maseko, was there any money which changed hands for the receiving of these weapons?
MR MASEKO: No.
MR PANDAY: So is it correct to assume that these weapons were solely provided for the protection of the organisation?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Now Mr Maseko, after the attack on Thulane Mkhize’s residence, did you become aware that any persons were injured as a result of the attack?
MR MASEKO: Yes I did see that some people were injured when we launched the attack because there were two persons who were in a vehicle.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko after the attack and your retreating, what became of the weapons that were used in this attack?
MR MASEKO: They remained with us in case they counter attacked so that we could protect ourselves.
MR PANDAY: And were the weapons kept in one specific place or did each person keep the weapon with them?
MR MASEKO: They were kept in one place.
MR PANDAY: Where about in this one place were the weapons kept?
MR MASEKO: If we were not using them, we would normally hide them, maybe bury them under the ground or hide them in caves.
MR PANDAY: And Mr Maseko, who was in charge of all of these weapons when they were not in use?
MR MASEKO: I was in charge.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, would you happen to know what has become of these weapons since your arrest or at the time when you were arrested? Do you know what became of these weapons?
MR MASEKO: Mbongeni Nthuli removed them or took them from me after the war was over, Mbongeni Nthuli and Celo Makai.
MR PANDAY: And when was this war over?
MR MASEKO: If I remember correctly it was in 1992.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, by launching this attack on Thulane Mkhize, did you achieve or benefit from this attack?
MR MASEKO: I never benefited or gained anything from the organisation.
MR PANDAY: Okay. But in terms of the organisation and the people by this attack, was anything achieved? Were the goals of the organisation achieved?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I would say there were objectives that were achieved.
MR PANDAY: And these objectives were the objectives of the organisation, the ANC?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, in a nutshell, to put before the Committee, is it correct to assume that the sole reason for the attack on Thulane Mkhize who was the IFP Chairman at the time, was purely for protecting and ensuring that the organisation, the ANC was being protected, would that be a correct assumption?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PANDAY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Panday. Mr Mapoma, questions?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Maseko, Mr Mkhize is here, I think you have seen him. Mr Ndlalose is also here. Mr Ngcobo is not here, he's a policeman in kwaMakutha. Those who are here are saying that in principle they are not opposed to your application for amnesty, but they want you to
disclose as full and relevant as possible relating to this incident. Do you understand that?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I do. What I can tell them is that if they need to ask anything from me, they should feel free to do so.
MR MAPOMA: Yes. Now, you, if I understand you well, you said you got instructions from Zitha to launch the attack. Is that correct?
MR MASEKO: Mr Mathe.
MR MAPOMA: Oh yes, Mathe yes, sorry. Now where did he give you those instructions?
MR MASEKO: At that time we were at Mapumulo. That is in ...(indistinct)
MR MAPOMA: Were you alone when these instructions were given?
MR MASEKO: There were two of us.
MR MAPOMA: Who else was there when the instructions were given?
MR MASEKO: Sipho Shelembe.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat that Ms Interpreter a little slower.
INTERPRETER: Sipho Shelembe.
CHAIRPERSON: Shelembe?
INTERPRETER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Mapoma.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir. And when he gave you the instructions, did you formulate a plan with him as to how are you going to attack?
MR MASEKO: Yes, we did.
MR MAPOMA: What was the plan?
MR MASEKO: We planned on how to attack and on when to launch the attack at Mr Mkhize’s home.
MR MAPOMA: Yes, that's what I want to know. Please tell the Committee, how was the plan? They are here as well, Mr Ndlalose and Mr Mkhize, they want to know.
MR MASEKO: We left at about 2 a.m. so that we could get closer to his home.
MR MAPOMA: Sorry, just there. When you left, how many were you?
MR MASEKO: There were six of us and the others were not armed, so the six were the ones who were armed.
MR MAPOMA: Now, the six of you who were armed, were you armed with guns, all of you?
MR MASEKO: That's correct.
MR MAPOMA: Now if I understand you correctly, when you described the weapons that were there in your possession, they are five. Can you explain this? You said, if I remember well, it was one AK47, one R1, one 308, one 303 and one shotgun.
MR MASEKO: There were two 303's.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's two 303's.
MR MAPOMA: Sorry, thank you. The others who did not have the firearms were five, if I understand?
MR MASEKO: That's correct.
MR MAPOMA: Now what was the plan? Was the plan to go and kill Mr Mkhize, Thulane Mkhize?
MR MASEKO: Yes, ...(indistinct) that attacked him. We felt that if we could get him then everything else would fall into place.
MR MAPOMA: Yes and do I understand that you were aware that he was under police guard?
MR MASEKO: Yes, we did.
MR MAPOMA: Now these policemen, were they South African police or KwaZulu police who were keeping guard Mr Mkhize?
MR MASEKO: ...police.
MR MAPOMA: Yes. Now proceed then. You said it was 11 of you, you left at 2.00 a.m. all armed as a group, what happened?
MR MASEKO: At about 5.00 - 6.00 in the morning, at that time he was still at home before he transported some people to work. We had planned to launch the attack at that time before he left for work. His car was parked on the premises. We divided ourselves into three, the six who were armed with firearms. I approached the vehicle in front. At that time there was music playing on the radio in the vehicle. I think I fired two shots towards the vehicle but I didn't see anyone inside. Because there was no-one inside I took cover and did not proceed to shoot anymore.
The other comrades approached from the direction where his vehicle would drive off and the others approached from below the house. On hearing shots, some people whom we could not see, fired towards us. At the time I could not see Mr Mkhize because there were gunshots very close to where we were, but we could not identify the source of that gunfire. Because of that situation, the exchange of fire, we could not then proceed into Mr Mkhize’s yard. We remained outside the house.
MR MAPOMA: Now when you shot at the motor vehicle, did you observe who was inside the motor vehicle?
MR MASEKO: When I shot at the car it was to frighten whoever was inside, so that they would not climb out because our intention was to get hold of Mr Mkhize.
MR MAPOMA: Did you anticipate that he might have been inside the motor vehicle when you shot?
MR MASEKO: That's true.
MR MAPOMA: Did you see at all that there was somebody inside the motor vehicle?
MR MASEKO: I could not see at the time but when the firing started between us and the people who were guarding Mr Mkhize, there were shots that were being directed at us very close to us, so we had to take cover, lie on the ground so that we could identify the person who was shooting at us. It was after about 15 minutes that we managed to identify that person and see that there were persons, or that they were in the car, that was when we started firing at that vehicle.
MR MAPOMA: Now it has turned out that those persons who were inside that car were Mr Shekumbuso Ndlalose and Sheabona Ngcobo and those were the persons whom you were convicted of attempting to kill. Now, I want you to explain this. Your intention was to kill Mr Mkhize, now you shoot at Ngcobo and Ndlalose. Why?
MR MASEKO: Mr Ngcobo was Mr Thulane Mkhize’s guard. At the time that we were firing, we could not really identify whether it was Mr Mkhize himself, or the police who were guarding him, because when I tried to jump over the fence into the yard, soldiers approached, so I could not even surely get into the yard.
MR MAPOMA: Now, these weapons that were used on that day, where are they now? Do you know?
MR MASEKO: As of now, I do not have such knowledge because after my arrest those weapons were returned to Maqongqo. Most of the people who were with me at Mr Mkhize’s house were from Maqongqo. Those were the people who used to assist us. Those weapons were used to shoot at a vehicle in which a child was found.
MR MAPOMA: Mr Mkhize and Mr Ndlalose who are here, have indicated that in the area where this incident took place, there is now peace there, there's peace between the ANC and the IFP and they are eager to know what your attitude is regarding that peace. If you get amnesty, aren't you going to foment the violence again? I just want your comment on this.
MR MASEKO: I would say in actual fact I need to apologise to Mr Mkhize, Mr Ndlalose and Ngcobo for the commission of that act, but I hope they know that I am not a violent person. What happened was necessitated by the situation.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Maseko. Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Has the Panel got any questions?
ADV BOSMAN: I just have one question. Tell me, Mr Maseko, have you been in the ...(indistinct) prison, when you were initially sentenced? Have you been there all the time?
MR MASEKO: No. I was attending trial in Pietermaritzburg.
ADV BOSMAN: Okay, at the time when you were applying for amnesty were you in the Ngome prison? I'm just asking this ...(intervention)
MR MASEKO: I first applied when I was in Pietermaritzburg in 1995. I was transferred to Ngome and I also put in another application when I was there in 1996.
ADV BOSMAN: Okay, the question I actually wanted answered is, do you know whether the people at Ngome prison were informed of the amnesty process? This has something to do with another matter, so it's not to trap you or anything, I just want to know whether at this Ngome prison, whether people were informed about the amnesty process.
MR MASEKO: Yes they were informed. We were also informed at Pietermaritzburg.
ADV BOSMAN: Okay, fine, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just to assist Madam Chair with regards to her question, the applications, Mr Maseko, who at Ngome prison informed you of the application for amnesty?
MR MASEKO: It was the authorities who explained to the prisoners in general.
ADV BOSMAN: If you would just allow me one more question. There's just something in regard to your own matter which I'd like you to clarify. On page 3 of the papers under paragraph 11(b), you stated that Mr Baba Mahladla gave the order but in your evidence you stated that Mr Mathe gave the order to attack Mr Mkhize. How did that come about? If you could just clarify that for us?
MR MASEKO: When we went out to commit that act Mr Mahladla was already deceased. The person who was the leader then was Mr Mathe.
ADV BOSMAN: My question is, why did you state in your form that it was Mr Mahladla? Perhaps your legal representative could just show you the form where it was stated that Mr Mahladla actually gave the order.
MR MASEKO: I would put it this way. Mr Mahladla ...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Please, can I just ask you everybody, please just switch off those cell phones. Yes carry on.
MR MASEKO: After Mr Mahladla's death Mr Mathe assumed that position and he was assisted by me but our leader was Mr Mahladla.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a mistake in the form, is that what you're trying to say?
MR MASEKO: I think the mistake was made by the person who assisted me because when I filled in my form I had mentioned both of them.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. It's just to make sure that the people who are the victims here understand who gave you the order and it wasn't Mr Mathe, this is an error. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination, Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Just one question.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Maseko, you mentioned that you know the police that were guarding Mr Thulane Mkhize were the KZP, is that correct?
MR MASEKO: That is correct.
MR PANDAY: Do you know who at the time was in charge of the KwaZulu police, KZP?
MR MASEKO: I did not know.
MR PANDAY: Let me just rephrase that question to you. Do you know, we had the South African police and the KwaZulu police in Natal?
MR MASEKO: Yes, I am aware that the KwaZulu police belonged to the then KwaZulu government.
MR PANDAY: To the KwaZulu government, and who was the KwaZulu government? Who were in charge of the KwaZulu government, which party?
MR MASEKO: It was the IFP.
MR PANDAY: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PANDAY
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Maseko, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Panday.
MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, the applicant is the only evidence that will be led, the evidence of the applicant in respect of his application for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR PANDAY: Yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I just want to have a minute to talk to ...
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on) Yes, Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I have just consulted with Mr Mkhize and Mr Ndlalose, they say they confirm some, almost all what the applicant has said and they would like it to be placed on record that they would wish that Mr Maseko would stick to what he has said about peace in that area. That is all, Chairperson. I would also, at this stage, would like to point out that Mr Mkhize’s motor vehicle was damaged during the shoot-out. Mr Shekumbuso Ndlalose and Sheabona Alfeus Ngcobo suffered gunshot wounds as a result of the attempt on their lives, arising from the shoot-out. That is all, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. We have noted what you have placed on record and we've noted the attitude of the two interested parties. Where's your client now? Or perhaps let me just hear from you, perhaps it's not necessary to ask him. Is it common cause that the vehicle was damaged in the attack?
MR PANDAY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Then there's no need to ask your client. I assume Mr Mapoma, the damage was caused by the bullets that were fired at the vehicle?
MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: There was no other manner of damaging the vehicle, there were no stones thrown at it, it wasn't burned out, it's just that the shots were fired at the vehicle and that caused damage to it?
MR MAPOMA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we understand that.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mapoma, is it just two victims that are here? Is Mr Ngcobo not here?
MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngcobo is not here, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: Has he been notified?
MR MAPOMA: He has been notified.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Panday, have you got any submissions on the merits of your client's case, bearing in mind that he doesn't seem really to be opposed.
MR PANDAY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am not going to burden the Committee. All of the evidence is much of common cause, the application is not opposed and it's my submission that the applicant has discharged the relevant onus in that he has placed before this Committee the full facts in relation
to this incident. It has also been disclosed that this has obviously been as a result of a political attack on the IFP, the victims of the attack, Mr Chairman, that being a KwaZulu police officer at the time. It is not in dispute that the KZP is obviously, or at the time, was being governed by the IFP and as such the attack was totally politically motivated, Mr Chairman and as such the applicant has only conducted, or he and the others only conducted this attack purely on the basis of a political motive. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Panday. Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: I have no submissions, Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume you wouldn't have anything else that you want to add?
MR PANDAY: No, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that concludes the formalities, evidence, arguments in this matter. It is now for the Panel to go and consider everything that has been said here carefully. The evidence that was given, everything that was placed on record, the argument that was raised in support of the application and then to decide whether the application complies with the law, which is our duty. We will do our very best to decide this matter as quickly as is practically possible in the circumstances and as soon as that decision is available then all of the parties with an interest in this matter, will be notified about the outcome of the application. So under those circumstances, we are going to reserve the decision in the matter.
We want to thank Mr Panday and Mr Mapoma for your assistance in this matter and we want to thank the people with an interest in the matter for having come and for having placed their views in regard to this matter before us. We are heartened by the fact that it appears as if whatever conflict might have existed in this particular area in the past, has now been resolved and we have noted the attitude of the applicant in response to the inquiry that was made legitimately by the interested parties. In the circumstances we will reserve the decision.
I am informed that we have to adjourn for lunch, which I didn't really intend to do, but we accept that there are other people who need to do that, or who need for there to be a luncheon adjournment. However, we have started in the middle of the day today because of the logistical situation here at this venue and for that reason and in order to be able to complete the rest of the work that we have for the day, we are going to adjourn only for 30 minutes, so we will then reconvene here at exactly 2 o'clock and we will then proceed to deal with the matter of Tshabalala. So we adjourn until 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
