CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. I am Judge Pillay and I read my name into the record for the purposes of identification for the benefit of the typists.
ADV POTGIETER: I am Advocate Potgieter for the purposes of the recording.
MR SIBANYONI: I am J B Sibanyoni and for the purposes of the recordings I introduce myself and I hope my name is distinct they will easily pick it up.
CHAIRPERSON: Will the various representatives do the same for the purposes of the record please? Mr Mapoma which matter are we dealing with first?
MR MAPOMA: Sir we are dealing with the matter of Simpiwe Bleki, amnesty application number 003/96 and Oscar Nongongo, amnesty application number 0041/96.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then only the representatives involved in that matter need identify themselves.
MR WESSELS: I am representing both applicants; Mr Bleki and Mr Nongongo. My name is J W Wessels, Advocate J W Wessels. I am instructed by the firm Nonkosi Munthlanthla and Associates.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wessels. Are there any introductory remarks that you want to make or any agreements that we should be made aware of?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairman sorry Sir for the purposes of record my name is Zuko Mapoma, the leader of evidence for the Amnesty Committee. Mr Chairman we have agreed, myself and Advocate Wessels that the two applicants; Mr Bleki and Mr Nongongo are going to make joint application for the purposes of evidence. And Mr Bleki will testify. Mr Nongongo aligning himself with the testimony of Mr Bleki. That is it Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma just for clarity sake is the victim or his family members present?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Mr Chairman the deceased's wife, Mrs Maliti is here.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand the victim in this matter did not lose his life as a result of the actions pertinent to this application?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson the deceased died some years later after the (...indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: And the application is in respect of attempted murder?
MR MAPOMA: Absolutely yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And certain offences under the Act relating to ammunition and firearms?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you offered any assistance to the family of the victims, should they need assistance?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson I have consulted at length with Mrs Maliti and the other victim.
CHAIRPERSON: And are they aware that you can be approached at any time?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wessels?
MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I propose then to call Mr Bleki, the first applicant to testify in support of his application for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR WESSELS: Your full names Mr Bleki?
MR BLEKI: My name is Simpiwe.
MR WESSELS: And your second name?
MR BLEKI: Lincoln.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bleki are you comfortable with english? You are entitled to talk Xhosa. There are interpreters.
MR BLEKI: I will speak Xhosa preferably.
MR WESSELS: Yes. Mr Bleki may I proceed in administering the oath then?
CHAIRPERSON: I will do so.
MR WESSELS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bleki have you got any objections to the taking of the oath?
MR BLEKI: No objection.
(SORTING OUT OF MICROPHONES)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bleki have you got any objections to the taking of the oath?
MR BLEKI: No problem Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you stand please?
SIMPIWE LINCOLN BLEKI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Be seated.
MR WESSELS: Mr Bleki in support of your application for amnesty you have completed the necessary application form and you have also submitted a detailed affidavit setting out the facts in this matter. Do you confirm that?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: During the period 1992 to 1993 and more in particular at the time of this incident which took place on Sunday the 8th of August 1993 at Middelburg what was your position in the ANC at Middelburg?
MR BLEKI: I was a member of the African National Congress in Middelburg. I was also a member of the self defence unit. I was a political commissar.
MR WESSELS: Is it correct that you were also responsible for the safety and security of members of the Middelburg community?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: The victim in this matter, Warrant Officer Leeman Maliti was he a policeman attached to the security branch section stationed at Middelburg?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Now you have in your affidavit given particulars of the problems and difficulties that you had with the victim. Could you very briefly just highlight what was the nature of the relationship between the victim and the greater part of the community in Middelburg?
MR BLEKI: I can do that. I am going to start and say that the relationship between the members of the community of Middelburg and the late Warrant Officer Maliti was not good at all. He was a security policeman. He used to fight against people who fought for liberation, people who were in the struggle for liberation. It was his job to oppress us, to take us to the police station, to beat us up. He would go to our homes as freedom fighters. He made it very difficult politically for us. He made it very difficult for us to reach our goals as freedom fighters in Middelburg.
MR WESSELS: In the past were there any actions taken by the community towards or directed at Warrant Officer Maliti?
MR BLEKI: Yes there were a lot of attempts that they made or things that happened that showed the enmity between the community and Warrant Officer Maliti. People would toi-toi trying to show that we were not working together with him. His house was attacked. We tried to show him that we do not want him in our community.
MR WESSELS: And how did he react towards the feeling of the community as shown by the community?
MR BLEKI: When he would see a group of people who would be toi-toiing towards him he would go out with his weapon or gun trying to protect himself. He would go raiding peoples houses' that he suspected that they contributed to whatever demonstration there was against him.
MR WESSELS: And is this something that was restricted to a very short period before the fateful day of August 1993 or was it something that was protracted over a number of years prior to that?
MR BLEKI: This was over a long period of time before the 8th of August, the day of this incident.
MR WESSELS: Did the victim in the course of those years also detain you personally?
MR BLEKI: A number of times, a lot of times.
MR WESSELS: And how did the victim treat you in the course of your detention?
MR BLEKI: He was very oppressive, he beat me up. As a result I laid charges on him.
MR WESSELS: Are you aware that some of your co-inhabitants of the township there were also detained by the victim?
MR BLEKI: Correct, that would happen I am aware. His oppression was not only directed towards me. It was anybody who was a freedom fighter in Middelburg at the time. He did not pick and choose. Youth, elderly people, even old ladies, reverends as well he would arrest.
MR WESSELS: And the way that the victim treated the detainees was this the subject of general discussions there in Middelburg?
MR BLEKI: Yes it was terrible his attitude towards the community, we would talk about it.
MR WESSELS: Would it be correct to describe the situation as a situation where the community in general was angry with the victim?
MR BLEKI: That is absolutely correct.
MR WESSELS: Did anybody lose his life as a result of the actions of the victim?
MR BLEKI: Yes, a lot of people lost their lives because of the victim.
MR WESSELS: In the papers supporting your application you refer to an incident when Chris Hani died and you make reference to the actions of the victim in response to the death of Chris Hani. Could you just elaborate on that? How did the victim respond to Chris Hani's death? On page 22 of the documents there is reference to this at the bottom. I believe the applicant cannot hear the interpreter.
CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Hani died did the victim display any peculiar response to this?
MR BLEKI: He was very glad, very happy.
MR WESSELS: What did he, how did he express his happiness at the time?
MR BLEKI: He walked up and down the streets with his weapon, remarks that he would pass that the communist is dead, he is now at peace.
MR WESSELS: And how did the community respond to the reactions displayed by the victim?
MR BLEKI: That triggered a whole lot of hatred towards the late Mr Maliti.
MR WESSELS: Is it correct that the culmination of all of these actions lead to a earnest request directed at the victim to leave the township and to move to the built-up area?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And did he pay any attention to this earnest request by the community for him to leave?
MR BLEKI: No he did not take heed at all. He did not care about peoples' rights. He did not listen to anything that people said.
MR WESSELS: So eventually what decision did you take in regard to the victim?
MR BLEKI: As I was also a victim to him and I could not rest in Middelburg because he was after me all the time. And also seeing members of my community in such oppressive situations I then decided to shoot him and to kill him. That is a decision that I took as a result of the situation.
MR WESSELS: How did you believe would this action by you which you intended taking assist the community in the struggle in which they found themselves?
MR BLEKI: First of all Mr Maliti worked for the security forces in Middelburg. We had our own leaders that he was after and oppressing. The community would gain a lot. Especially our leaders who played a major role in bringing about the transformation in our country. Killing him would bring peace in Middelburg. Especially in the transformation towards democracy. So that democracy would come in a peaceful manner, without our leaders being oppressed in Middelburg.
MR WESSELS: And was this decision which you decided or which you took was it a decision which you had taken yourself or was it a decision which you took in consultation with the executive of the ANC at the time?
MR BLEKI: I did try to talk with other members, leaders of the African National Congress in the community. I also knew that they knew a lot about protection in our community. They were also aware of Mr Maliti's actions. Could the speaker please repeat the last sentence? I did try to tell them how I intended to deal with Mr Maliti.
MR WESSELS: And was there any reaction from those with whom you shared this?
MR BLEKI: They were not against my views. They did not give me an order either to continue. I took initiative to deal with Mr Maliti.
MR WESSELS: You were not seeking an order or authorization, it was solely a decision taken by yourself to deal with the victim in order to achieve the objective?
MR BLEKI: I did not want their order necessarily. I just was sharing with them the decision that I had taken against the victim who was very cruel towards the community.
MR WESSELS: In executing this decision of yourself you required assistance and in doing so you approached Mr Oscar Nongongo, that is the second applicant in this matter, who was resident in Port Elizabeth. Is that correct?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: You had got to know Mr Nongongo over the years as a fellow comrade?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: And was he also detained with you on occasions?
MR BLEKI: Yes there was a time when we were both arrested together.
MR WESSELS: When you approached Mr Nongongo was he agreeable to assist you in the execution of this plan?
MR BLEKI: Yes he fully agreed.
MR WESSELS: You then proceeded in making arrangements for the execution of this plan, eventually proceeding to Middelburg on Saturday the 7th of August 1993 in order to observe and scout the area where the victim was staying?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: Throughout the period that you intended executing this plan was your aim directed solely at the victim Mr Maliti or did you not care whether other innocent bystanders were also injured in possible crossfire?
MR BLEKI: This was solely directed at Mr Maliti, nobody else. That we were certain of.
MR WESSELS: So you went to great lengths to ensure that you would get the victim on his own?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: As you have set out the observations which you held as it is set out in your affidavit it eventually resulted in you and the second applicant approaching the house of the victim on Sunday morning the 8th of August 1993?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: And on entering the house of the victim, where did you find the victim?
MR BLEKI: He was sitting on a chair looking towards us.
MR WESSELS: And what happened then, very briefly?
MR BLEKI: We got to the house, we knocked. I then heard his voice. Oscar was just ahead of me. I knew according to our plans that Oscar would not know this man. I then tried to alert him. When we realised that it was him we shot at the man. We then heard somebody crying in the background. A lady's voice. As our intention was not to shoot anybody else or to injure anybody else we only wanted Mr Maliti we tried to shoot him as much as we could and then we ran off.
MR WESSELS: At the time when you shot at the victim was your intention to kill him?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: And did both you and your co-applicant, Oscar shoot at Mr Maliti?
MR BLEKI: Yes, both of us.
MR WESSELS: After having shot Mr Maliti you proceeded to a so-called hiking spot outside of Middelburg where you intended to leave the area in an arranged taxi?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: But you were arrested before you could leave the area. Is that correct?
MR BLEKI: That is so.
MR WESSELS: You were eventually charged in the regional court at Middelburg?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: And how did the community in general react to you being charged there in the regional court?
MR BLEKI: What I could say is that the community was relieved in what happened to the victim. I say this because of the way they supported us the first time we went to court. I remember very well because even the schools in Middelburg showed support. To me they were showing that they were supportive of what we had done.
MR WESSELS: And were you also assisted by the provision of defence counsel to appear on your behalf at the trial?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: You were eventually convicted of attempted murder and offenCes under the Arms and Ammunition Act and sentenced to an effective ten (10) years imprisonment, which you are presently serving?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Which particular offences under the Arms and Ammunition Act?
MR WESSELS: It is possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of ammunition. Is that correct Mr Bleki?
CHAIRPERSON: Unlawful possession of the ammunition?
MR WESSELS: That is so.
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Wait just before you get. And those two offenses were, he was separately charged for?
(Could the judge please speak a little bit louder?)
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Those two offences, that is the possession of unlicensed firearm and the unlawful possession of ammunition you were charged separately for?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So in total you had three charges and you were convicted of all three?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR WESSELS: In respect of the possession of the unlicensed firearm and the possession of ammunition without having in your possession a licensed firearm, could you have executed this plan if you did not have access to this firearm and ammunition?
MR BLEKI: I could not have.
MR WESSELS: So although they were separate charges it was all required for the purpose of achieving this objective of eliminating the victim?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: As far as your co-applicant is concerned he was not present at the time when your case was finalised?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: He was subsequently convicted and sentenced in your absence?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you still in prison? Are you still serving this sentence?
MR BLEKI: Yes correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And your co-applicant?
MR BLEKI: Him as well.
CHAIRPERSON: How long have you served already?
MR BLEKI: I was sentenced in 1994, the 25th of May.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you appeal against that conviction?
MR BLEKI: No I did not appeal.
CHAIRPERSON: So you started serving your sentence from May 1994?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you know when your co-accused starting serving his sentence?
MR BLEKI: I am not sure about the date.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels do you perhaps know from the
record?
MR WESSELS: Yes, the co-applicant was sentenced on the 27th of June 1995. And he was sentenced to an effective eleven (11) years imprisonment. However he is also serving other sentences, lengthy other sentences.
CHAIRPERSON: I am only concerned about this application.
MR WESSELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I see in his application Mr Wessels, unless I have not read this properly, that he did not apply for escaping.
MR WESSELS: No, that is correct. The application is only in respect of the attempted murder and the offenses under the Firearm Act.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you not argue that the escape is part and parcel of this whole escapade?
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman no. He has a peculiar situation involving other matters and I will be, it will be difficult to argue that the escaping was solely related in respect of this matter. So I will not pursue that line of argument.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. So the application is only made in respect of attempted murder and the offenses under the Arms and Ammunition Act?
MR WESSELS: Indeed so on behalf of both these applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: And second applicant is aware of this?
MR WESSELS: I am sure, well his application is only in respect of those matters. And I think that is the whole reason why it is only framed in that nature.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, through you Mr Chairperson may I perhaps ask one question? He was sentenced to eleven (11) years. Is this eleven (11) years only for attempted murder, unlawful possession of arms and ammunition? Has it got nothing to do with the escaping?
MR WESSELS: No he was not charged for escaping in the regional court. He was only sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment for the attempted murder and a total of one year imprisonment for the offences under the Arms and Ammunition which was ordered to run concurrently with another suspended sentence in another matter. So in total if he was sentenced to an effective eleven (11) years imprisonment. That is the second applicant.
Mr Bleki if there is nothing further then I just want to return to certain aspects. You already lodged your application for amnesty in 1996 and the hearing of your application for amnesty was set down for August 1997, that was last year. But because of certain difficulties with the investigation by the investigation team your application was not heard in August of last year. Is that correct?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: And you are presently by bringing this application still waiting for this whole matter, this is the only matter which is keeping you in prison?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
MR WESSELS: I want to deal with your present relationship with Mrs Maliti, the victim's wife who is present here in the audience. Is it correct this morning she also came to you, to come and greet you?
MR BLEKI: That is correct. When she was walking past me she greeted me and I greeted right back.
MR WESSELS: And the victim's children, do they still attend school together with your younger brother or brothers?
MR BLEKI: Yes they went to school together but now I hear that my little brother is in Cape Town. They are no longer at school together.
MR WESSELS: And what is your information about the children of the victim visiting your house in your absence now that you are in prison? Do they come and visit your house?
MR BLEKI: Yes I would hear that Mr Maliti's children would go to my house. They are friends with my siblings.
MR WESSELS: And do you have any feelings or emotions which you wish to express in regard to the family of the victim?
MR BLEKI: Yes. I would be very grateful if I had the opportunity to say something.
MR WESSELS: Please proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: I think if you want to make your peace with anybody then you can do it after the hearing.
MR WESSELS: As the Chairman pleases. There is one matter which Mrs Maliti has raised and that is that she has mentioned that after the shooting of her husband, the victim there were rumours doing the rounds there in Middelburg that she was in some way connected with the planning of the shooting of her husband. Now can you respond in regard to those rumours that did the rounds?
MR BLEKI: I know Mrs Maliti, she used to teach me. In connection with this case she did not take part at all. She never really spoke to me about my political activities or my differences with her husband. She did not play any role in this matter at all. I have nothing against her or her children. But I could say that I am very sorry about what happened that we shot Mr Maliti.
CHAIRPERSON: The question is, did she have anything to do with your activities relating with the incident with her husband?
MR BLEKI: No, not at all.
MR WESSELS: And she and your co-applicant, Oscar did not even know each other. So as far as your co-applicant is concerned she had nothing to do from his point of view with the execution of this plan. Is that correct?
MR BLEKI: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman those are the facts in support of the application for both these applicants which we wish to tender. The details of the application is set out in the documents. If there is nothing in particular that any of the committee members would like to hear us on, then we will stand by what has now been tendered.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma have you got any questions?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no questions.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson perhaps one or two questions. Mr Bleki after the incident how did your organisation, the ANC react to the incident?
MR BLEKI: I tried to get in touch with the comrades after the incident giving them all the details what happened. All I had received was their support.
MR SIBANYONI: Are they also supportive of your application for amnesty?
MR BLEKI: Yes there is also a report that they have got in support of my application for amnesty.
ADV POTGIETER: Mr Bleki in what capacity were you acting when you launched the attack on the deceased?
MR BLEKI: First of all I was the political commissar working in the security department. I took my own initiative as I already said to plan to kill Mr Maliti after I had spoken to the leaders in the community of the ANC. I fully believed that if I had said to them as I said that I was going to kill him they were not against this. I was also convinced that the community would be glad because Maliti was the enemy to the community.
ADV POTGIETER: Did you harbour any personal grudge or feelings of enmity towards Mr Maliti?
MR BLEKI: No there was no personal grudge. There was nothing personal about this. However in a political context there definitely was enmity.
ADV POTGIETER: So you were not intending to settle a personal score with Mr Maliti?
MR BLEKI: No there was no personal scores to be settled.
ADV POTGIETER: And do I understand you correctly from a political point of view you had regarded Mr Maliti as part of the enemy?
MR BLEKI: I thought that he was a very dangerous enemy in the community because a lot of times I saw these things with my own eyes that he did.
ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the victim the ...
MR BLEKI: Not the only one.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he the only one that committed atrocities like torture and so forth?
MR BLEKI: Yes I think, yes he was the only one who committed these atrocities. (Could the judge please come closer to the mike?)
CHAIRPERSON: Why was he singled out for such treatment and not other members of the security police?
MR BLEKI: If I remember correctly the security police in Nonzame, Middelburg he was the one who gave orders, who was more superior. He gave orders that led to the unrest. He was the cruel one who gave these orders.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the struggle you refer to, I think that is well documented. It ranged from housing, education and all these oppressive laws that kept our people down, correct?
MR BLEKI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the victim not aware that, that struggle or the success of that struggle would benefit even him?
MR BLEKI: He did not see the future. He did not think that the struggle would be successful. He thought that he was in a respectable place, he was armed all the time, he was protected personally and his job was to be oppressor and permit all the atrocities. He was free according to his view. He did not care about anybody elses liberation.
CHAIRPERSON: Despite the possible benefit to him did that make you more angry that would normally be the case?
(Could the speaker please repeat the question?)
CHAIRPERSON: Despite the possible benefits of the success of the struggle and him being a hurdle to that, did that make you more angry than would otherwise be the case?
MR BLEKI: Could you repeat the question please Sir?
CHAIRPERSON: Given the possible benefits of the success of this struggle did the fact that he a possible beneficiary of that success, did it make you more angry that he was presenting such a hurdle to this struggle?
MR BLEKI: I would not be angry if the struggle would be successful and we both would benefit from the liberation. He would not have contributed in any way. I contributed to it and I am glad and there are no oppressive ways in Middelburg any more.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Are there any other witnesses Mr Wessels?
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman there is just the second applicant. He is anxious to testify as well. Although the need for him to testify is questioned. His application is fully before the committee. May I just have a brief word with the other applicant?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels you can tell him that he can rest assured that we will treat him equally on the evidence that we have before us. Other than that is there any other evidence you would like you would like to place before this committee?
MR WESSELS: There is no other evidence that I wish to present at this stage. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma is there any evidence you would like to place before us?
MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman there is no other evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels we do not intend to call any other witnesses or obtain any other evidence. Is there any points you want to make before we close this matter for the time being until we can give a judgment?
MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman very briefly it is my submission that this application by both applicants conform with the requirements of the Act. It was clearly an act which was executed with the intention to benefit the struggle at the time. It is clearly a political objective which they intended to achieve. And it will certainly fall within the ambit of the definition of a political objective as set out in Section 22(a) of the Act. More than that there is nothing that I wish to elaborate on. Except there is anything in particular if the committee would like to hear me on. But viewed objectively everything points to a clear act with a political motive to achieve a specific objective which would have benefitted the whole community.
CHAIRPERSON: And for which you suggest that amnesty be granted?
MR WESSELS: For both applicants. May I just mention as it appeared from the evidence that as far as the first applicant is concerned the finalisation of this application has a specific relevance in respect of his freedom. It will not specifically affect the second applicant. But the first applicant has been in custody for many years already and so if in some way or another the committee could give preference to this application in particularly as far as Mr Bleki is concerned that will be mostly appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON: You are aware of the fact that we do not intend to waste more of his time. If we refuse that is the end of the matter. If we grant it, it is merely a recommendation to the state president.
MR WESSELS: That is so, no we understand that. As long as it can be given some sort of preference. Any preference will be valued by Mr Bleki in particular.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels our committee treats all applicants with preference. (LAUGHS) Mr Mapoma is there anything you would like to point out to us?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chair, I find nothing Sir to point out. I may just mention Sir that from the side of the victims I do not have much Chairperson to raise in objection to these applications by the applicants. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we will adjourn and we hope to be able to make a decision as soon as humanly possible. We will adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
