MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, I will be calling the next witness. I propose to first finish with the Flagstaff people and as such I will be calling Lungile Mazwi. Could he be sworn in please.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mazwi, what language would you prefer to use?
MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, he has just indicated that he will speak Xhosa, he is not very proficient in English.
CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest he uses the earphones.
LUNGILE MAZWI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR ZILWA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mazwi, your home is in Flagstaff, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: Correct.
MR ZILWA: And during 1993 you were residing in Flagstaff?
MR MAZWI: Correct.
MR ZILWA: Now, during that year, were you a member of - during that time, were you a member of any political organisation in Flagstaff? Yes, any political organisation?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I was a member of the ANC Youth League and SACP. Yes, I was a member of ANC Youth League and the SACP.
MR ZILWA: Were you holding any position of leadership or responsibility in any of those organisations, in other words, were you an office bearer in any of those organisations?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I was in the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League at the Flagstaff Branch.
MR ZILWA: We have already been told by Mr Maxhayi, the applicant before you, that in Flagstaff there were some SDU's or Self Defence Units which had been established. Were you aware of the existence of such?
MR MAZWI: Correct.
MR ZILWA: Were you by any chance a member of any of those SDU's?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: Were you holding any position of leadership or responsibility in any of those SDU's?
MR MAZWI: I was just an ordinary member.
MR ZILWA: Right. Now to cast your memory back to the events of April 1993, at the time of the unfortunate assassination of Chris Hani, the South African Communist Party leader, do you remember the events surrounding that killing?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I can remember some of the events.
MR ZILWA: During that period, is it correct that you were in the Flagstaff region?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: Now, we have been told by Mr Maxhayi who has already testified, that shortly after the killing of Chris Hani, or a few days thereafter, a decision was taken by the Flagstaff Self Defence Unit of which he was a member, that there should be a retaliation by the SDU for the murder of Chris Hani.
MR MAZWI: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Is it correct that he testified that only he and the present witness took the decision? It wasn't taken by the whole body of the SDU?
MR ZILWA: Let's rephrase that. Is it correct ...
MR MAZWI: Yes, please repeat the question, it is not clear to me.
CHAIRPERSON: There was a decision to retaliate against white people because of the assassination of Mr Hani, do you recall that?
MR MAZWI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Who took that decision?
MR MAZWI: We agreed, we were three comrades from Flagstaff. It was Nyalukana, Maxhayi and myself, Mazwi.
CHAIRPERSON: And who else?
MR MAZWI: It was Maxhayi and Nyalukana and myself, Mazwi.
MR ZILWA: Thank you. Now, what motivated you to take this decision to retaliate for the murder of Chris Hani?
MR MAZWI: It is because there was some disturbance, it actually disturbed us, the manner he was killed, that was one thing that motivated us to take that decision.
MR ZILWA: If I understood you correctly, you say you were disturbed emotionally and mentally, did you say that?
MR MAZWI: The way this whole thing happened, yes, it is like that.
MR ZILWA: Now, to make sure I understand you, are you saying the effect of the killing of Chris Hani, had subjected you to emotional and mental trauma and which motivated you to take the decision?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: Right, now I want to save time as much as possible, you have been listening to the evidence that was given by Mr Maxhayi.
MR MAZWI: Correct.
MR ZILWA: He has given a long and complete narration of the events that took place.
MR MAZWI: Yes.
MR ZILWA: You have also deposed to an affidavit which in essence is a confirmation of the events as already testified about by Mr Maxhayi?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: Do you abide by the averments by Mr Maxhayi, as to your motivation and the manner in which the operation of the unfortunate killing of the Weakley's and the commission of the offences against the others, that it was done?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: There is a suggestion that in fact your actions were not motivated by any political agenda, it was just pure racial prejudice or hatred on your part, which had nothing to do with politics. What do you say to that?
MR MAZWI: I disagree with that, if that is a suggestion that we were being racist. That is not true.
MR ZILWA: Mr Maxhayi has testified as to the objective, the political objective which he wished to attain. Do you agree with what he has stated amend thereto?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: You will remember that in your criminal trial before the Supreme Court of Transkei, you denied any involvement in the killing of the Weakley's and in fact your defence was that of an alibi, you claimed to have been somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offences, ie the killing of the Weakley's, do you remember that?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I can still remember that.
MR ZILWA: Is it correct that you were not telling the truth to the Court and the truth is the one that has been told before this Commission by Maxhayi and which you confirm?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I did not tell the truth in the criminal court.
MR ZILWA: Do you affirm that in fact what you have told this Commission today, is in fact what took place?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: Now, it has been alleged by Maxhayi that on the day in question, when you went to ambush the Weakley's you were personally in possession of a pistol. Do you remember Maxhayi saying that and do you confirm it?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: Just on that aspect of it, on which Maxhayi could not really come out clearly on all details, since he claimed not to have direct knowledge, could you please tell this Commission as to how and where you obtained such a pistol?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I can explain that.
MR ZILWA: Could you please do that?
MR MAZWI: I brought this pistol from town on a Monday.
MR ZILWA: Where did you obtain it?
MR MAZWI: As I was working with Vuyani at the Workshop, when I left him in town, he was about to meet Mr Maxhayi, they came to me and I brought the pistol. They came to fetch me at home.
On a Monday, I was in town as we were working together at the Workshop with Vuyani Nyalukana repairing radio's. On a Monday when I left him there, when he was about to meet Mr Maxhayi, I decided to take a pistol and I took it home and they came to fetch me on their way to Port St Johns.
MR ZILWA: Let me see if I get you correctly. In other words, as you have already stated, the arsenal of weapons was being kept by Nyalukana and you also had access thereto, do I understand you correctly?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR ZILWA: And from that arsenal of weapons which was being kept by Nyalukana and to which you had access, you selected this pistol that you used in taking down to Port St Johns with you?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I decided to take that pistol.
MR ZILWA: You have no direct knowledge as to how that pistol had come into the arsenal of the weapons which were in Nyalukana's custody?
MR MAZWI: All I knew was that the arms belonged to the organisation. I don't know how did they reach the place.
MR ZILWA: I see. Now, I will just go to those places where Maxhayi could not come out clearly.
According to him, when you arrived in Port St Johns and at the time of the operation, you yourself, you are not one of those who went to take ambush positions, you rather remained with the others at the back of the van, or let's rather say next to the van?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: That mean that even though you had this pistol in your position, you never got to use it?
MR MAZWI: I did not use the pistol there.
MR ZILWA: Any particular reason for that, you went down to Port St Johns, but you never used it. Is there any particular reason why you ended up not using it?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I do have a reason. I do have a reason not to use the pistol.
MR ZILWA: Could you tell this Committee what that reason is?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I can.
MR ZILWA: Please do so.
MR MAZWI: The other people who were left with me in the car, did not have arms. I was sure that this pistol was going to help if we happened to be defeated by the enemies.
MR ZILWA: I see. In other words you didn't deem it correct that all the weapons in your possession should be with those who had taken up ambush positions, you decided to retain this one as a defensive weapon in case you were defeated or attacked by the enemy as you put it?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I kept it for protecting the people who were with me in the van or perhaps if the enemy happened to overpower us and disturb the whole process, so we had to protect ourselves with this pistol and the other grenades.
MR ZILWA: I see. Maxhayi has also told us that you had intended to carry on with incidents of this nature, but the only thing that stopped you was the fact that you later learnt that President Nelson Mandela had called for calm and for restraint and not to commit retaliatory acts. Do you also confirm that?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: If you had heard the call for calm even before committing this deed, this operation, would you have committed the, would you have carried on with the operation, if you had heard that call before the operation?
MR MAZWI: Will you please repeat the question?
MR ZILWA: Yes, if you had heard about President Mandela's call for peace and calm before the operation, would you have carried on with the operation?
MR MAZWI: We would not continue with the operation, we would put down the weapons, we would stop attacking.
MR ZILWA: I see. Is that what persuaded you in fact to cancel the operations you had planned for later on?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: Yes. Now, to the families and friends of the deceased, the Weakley's and those who narrowly escaped your operation, what would you like to say to them?
MR MAZWI: The message for them to the families of the deceased and those who escaped, it is so unfortunate. I ask for forgiveness, it was not our intention to target the Weakley family or whatever family, but that was all the effort, that was all about the effort to show the government, the cruel government, that we were not satisfied by the killings and the disturbances, killings of our leaders and we wanted negotiations so that the country can be ruled in the right manner.
Therefore I ask for forgiveness to all those who escaped and the next of kin of the deceased. That was not our intention to hurt them, but it was to send a message to the government that we were totally against the regime.
That is the message that I would like to pass to the next of kin of the deceased.
MR ZILWA: Is it also correct that during our consultation, you asked me to convey to the legal representatives for the other side, that you would love an opportunity to personally apologise to those family members or victims?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct. I would like to have that opportunity to talk to them and ask for forgiveness.
MR ZILWA: Is there anything that you can think of pertaining to you operation or your deed, which you have not disclosed before this Commission?
MR MAZWI: The only thing I can say to the Committee is that I would, I would ask the Committee to sympathise with us and I would like the Committee to believe that we were not being criminal, it was liberation. We were involved in the liberation and we had to use all the power we had at the time and we were forced by the situation prevailing at that time, to act in that manner.
Therefore I would like the Committee to sympathise with us on those basis.
MR ZILWA: And you say your actions were actuated purely by your political objectives, achieving the objectives which you have referred to?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR ZILWA: And having adopted the evidence of Nyalukana and your affidavit, is it your submission that you have told this Committee everything that you can think of, relevant to the event?
MR MAZWI: Will you please repeat the question?
MR ZILWA: Yes, I say adopting the evidence of Nyalukana and that coupled with your affidavit, is it your submission that you have told this Committee everything that you can think of pertaining to the incident in respect of which you seek amnesty?
Sorry, I made a mistake about Nyalukana, sorry, Maxhayi.
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct and I hope that he has explained everything the way I was going to explain it.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not hear what he said?
MR MAZWI: Will you please repeat your question?
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not hear what he had said?
MR MAZWI: I heard.
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say you hope that he said everything the way you would have said it?
MR MAZWI: I was not sure that if I use the word hope, I was making a mistake, therefore I apologise for having used the word hope.
MR ZILWA: In other words what you are really saying is you feel that he had said everything that you would have wanted to say pertaining the incident?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct sir.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you associate yourself with his evidence?
INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you associate yourself with that evidence?
MR MAZWI: Yes, I agree with his evidence.
MR ZILWA: Anything else which you may wish to say to this Committee which I didn't ask you about?
MR MAZWI: No, there is nothing else that I can think of.
MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, that is the witness' evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ZILWA: .
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mazwi, did you lie to the criminal court in which you were tried to try and ensure that you would escape imprisonment?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct sir.
MR SMUTS: Are you giving the account that you give to this Committee today, so that you can be released from imprisonment?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: Is there any difference between the veracity of your evidence in the criminal court and the veracity of your evidence today?
ADV DE JAGER: What is that supposed to mean Mr Smuts?
MR MAZWI: Yes, there is a difference.
MR SMUTS: May I pursue that Mr Chairman. What is that difference?
MR MAZWI: What I said in court was not the truth. I was just trying to be released and not to be arrested or to be prosecuted.
MR SMUTS: When did you become involved in the so-called operation which led to the attack on the 13th of April 1993?
MR MAZWI: Can you please repeat your question sir?
MR SMUTS: At what stage, at what date, at what time, did you become involved in the operation which led to the ambush on the 13th of April 1993?
MR MAZWI: On Sunday I met comrade Nyalukana where we spoke about this matter about the killing of comrade Chris.
We then agreed to do whatever we can do so that we can show that we are against what happened.
MR SMUTS: Did you on that Sunday take any decision as to what it was that you would do?
MR MAZWI: I told him that I am ready any time, he can only go to comrade Maxhayi to hear from him.
MR SMUTS: Yes, but was there any decision as to a particular course of action on the Sunday?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't say we took a decision, because I told him that I am ready any time. He then was supposed to go to comrade Maxhayi to hear from him about his views about the situation.
MR SMUTS: When did you become aware that there was a decision to launch an attack on white people?
MR MAZWI: On Monday, Monday morning when I arrived at the Workshop, he told me that he met comrade Maxhayi and he told me that they decided that we should start attacking at Port St Johns because there were comrades there who had a problem and they told the sub-region there problem. I said I didn't have a problem about that.
If they need me, they would find me at home. If I am not at home, they would find me in town.
MR SMUTS: Were you ever party to a meeting of the Self Defence Unit of which you were a member, at which that Unit as a whole took a decision to retaliate in consequence of the assassination of Mr Hani?
MR MAZWI: A meeting?
MR SMUTS: Yes?
MR MAZWI: I don't remember any meeting sir. It was just myself and Nyalukana. I don't remember or I didn't hear about any meeting.
MR SMUTS: When you were told that the decision had been taken to launch an attack at Port St Johns, did you enquire as to why that was to be the place of the attack?
MR MAZWI: I didn't ask because I knew that there were problems in Port St Johns, the comrades in Port St Johns had a problem.
MR SMUTS: And how did, what did you understand that problem to be?
MR MAZWI: According to my knowledge, the problem that they had was that there were people who were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns.
Even though I didn't know their names.
MR SMUTS: In what manner were you advised that these people were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: What I heard from the meeting, I can't say it now exactly what was said, but it was said that the comrades from Port St Johns had a problem. What was very clear to me was that at the time when the Communist Party was launching the party there, there was a disturbance, there was noise, there were car hooters in front of the hall and there were cars in front of the hall, and there were a lot of things we heard, that happened.
MR SMUTS: Is that the incident to which Mr Maxhayi testified earlier which took place some two years before the shooting at Mpande on the 13th of April, a year before the shooting at Mpande in 1993?
MR MAZWI: Yes, it is one of the incidents.
MR SMUTS: Had any action been taken in respect of that disturbance before April of 1993?
MR MAZWI: By whom?
MR SMUTS: By the Self Defence Unit?
MR MAZWI: In Port St Johns or in Flagstaff?
MR SMUTS: At all?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't be sure about things that happened when I was not there, I am not aware of such a thing.
MR SMUTS: So you are not aware of any action taken between the disturbance of the meeting in 1992 and April 1993 when you decided to set off on this venture to Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: What I know is that what happened when the comrades reported this at the sub-region, they were told to investigate so that we can be sure where the problem is, how did this happen, how did this disturbance happen at Port St Johns.
Before we can even get a full answer, the incident of Chris Hani happened.
MR SMUTS: Are you saying then that there was not sufficient certainty about that disturbance some time in 1992, to justify action being taken by the Self Defence Unit before April of 1993?
MR MAZWI: Can you please explain sir. Please repeat your question.
MR SMUTS: You say that the Port St Johns people were told to furnish a full report regarding the disturbance. Does that mean that the information that was available, was not of sufficiently clear a nature to require the Self Defence Unit to act upon it before April of 1993?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't say it was not clear or it was clear, but there was a problem, it was very clear that they had a problem.
We then reached a decision for them to go and investigate and then the Chris Hani incident happened.
MR SMUTS: They had not reported on their investigations before the assassination of Mr Hani, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: They didn't come back with an answer, while I was in a meeting of the sub-region, according to my knowledge.
MR SMUTS: Why did the assassination of Mr Hani in Boksburg, require your taking action against this problem, in Port St Johns in April in 1993?
MR MAZWI: I didn't take it as that it happened in Boksburg, I took it as it happened in South Africa. As a South African, I was supposed to do everything here in South Africa.
MR SMUTS: Could you explain that?
CHAIRPERSON: You asked him Mr Smuts, why did he have to do something in Port St Johns in retaliation for something that occurred in Boksburg. He said he saw himself as a South African, not as a Port St Johns' resident or Boksburg resident.
MR SMUTS: The question I am putting to you is what had happened in Port St Johns did not require your action as a Self Defence Unit before April of 1993, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: The problem that was reported by the comrades before the Chris Hani incident?
MR SMUTS: Yes?
MR MAZWI: There was nothing which forced us to take steps or take action because it was not very clear, because they were told to go and investigate. After the investigation, we would then make a decision. I don't know whether I have answered your question sir.
MR SMUTS: Yes, thank you. Why did you then decide in April 1993 to target Port St Johns for an attack?
MR MAZWI: Port St Johns was closer to us and it had a problem at that time.
MR SMUTS: When the decision to attack Port St Johns became known to you, had it already been decided? Was it simply reported to you that there was going to be an attack on whites at Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: I was not told, as I have already said when I spoke to Mr Nyalukana, he was going to speak to Mr Maxhayi, I was expecting anything, anytime.
MR SMUTS: Well, were you advised that a decision had been taken, or did you participate in the making of a decision as to what to do?
MR MAZWI: Can you please explain your question, it is not clear to me?
MR SMUTS: Did you participate in the decision to launch an attack on white people at Port St Johns, or was it simply communicated to you by Mr Nyalukana or whoever, that a decision had been taken to attack white people at Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: I can say that I was there when they took the decision, because when they arrived at home, we went outside and we spoke and we decided to go and attack Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: I would like you to define somewhat more clearly what the decision was that you took? You say you decided to go and attack Port St Johns. That is a fairly large scale operation. What was the precise decision that you took?
MR MAZWI: When the comrades arrived, they told me that they heard a view that they should go to the comrades in Port St Johns, concerning their problem.
I then told the comrades that we should do that because Port St Johns were closer and we should start there, because it was closer.
MR SMUTS: Well, if you decided to start in Port St Johns because it was closer, what did you decide to go and do in Port St Johns, or was there as yet, no decision as to what precisely you were going to do?
MR MAZWI: When we moved from Port St Johns, we decided to go and hit the enemy, the enemy we heard about before. Even though we were not sure where we would find this enemy, we hoped that we would find comrades that would show us the enemy and attack and then go back.
MR SMUTS: Can I just clarify that, the interpretation said when we moved from Port St Johns, was that meant to be when we moved to Port St Johns from Flagstaff?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, we were from Flagstaff to Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: So by the time you left Flagstaff, you had made a decision to go and attack specific people at Port St Johns, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: We made a decision that we were going to the comrades, and they would show us the enemy in Port St Johns, we were going to comrades in Port St Johns, and they would show us the enemy which was causing problems for them in Port St Johns. We would attack them and then we would go to other places if we could, on that same day.
MR SMUTS: And the enemy you speak of, were people who had blown their hooters and disrupted the meeting of the South African Communist Party the previous year, is that the enemy you speak of?
MR MAZWI: It was anyone who was disturbing the struggle.
ADV DE JAGER: You said you would go to Port St Johns and the comrades will show you the enemy which you could then attack and then you go to other places, which you have planned. Could you tell me about the other places that you had planned? Where was that?
MR MAZWI: It would depend after we had attacked. There were a lot of places that we could go to.
ADV DE JAGER: But you said other places that you had planned. Which other places did you plan? Where was that?
MR MAZWI: Maybe you heard me wrong. I didn't say that there were other places that we planned to attack. I said there were a lot of places that we could attack.
MR SMUTS: With respect Mr Mazwi, that is simply not correct, because when you gave your evidence as led by your legal Counsel, you were asked about the call by Mr Mandela for calm and that that was what led you not to continue with operations and your legal representative then asked you the following question which I have written down verbatim. Is that what persuaded you to cancel the operations which you had planned for later on and your answer was yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But you must read it in context, I think the problem that arises here is that there is possibly a plan for that same day, or elsewhere as opposed to other days.
MR SMUTS: I am not suggesting that it is otherwise Mr Chairman, but what the witness was specifically referred to by his legal representative was, operations which had been planned for later on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the impression, one of the possibilities of his interpretation of his evidence, was that after the attack on Port St Johns, that they had planned other attacks for that day, and he says now that he didn't say that.
MR SMUTS: May I pursue that on a broader context then Mr Chairman?
What operations which had been planned for later on, did you cancel?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't say sir, because we had not already planned.
MR SMUTS: Then can you explain to the Committee why you confirmed that you cancelled operations which had been planned for later on, when that was put to you by your legal counsel?
MR MAZWI: I was not suggesting that there were a lot of places that we planned to attack, even though we could attack a lot of places.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to attack other places without necessarily deciding which place it would be, or which places they would be?
MR MAZWI: Places which we intended to attack?
CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me. We are all getting confused about the use of the word plan because one interpretation could be that you had planned specific operations to be carried out in specific places on specific buildings or people.
Another interpretation could be that there was plans to participate in further attacks, without having decided who or what would be attacked. Which is it?
MR MAZWI: After we attacked in Port St Johns?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR MAZWI: The question is not clear to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Look, you were asked by your legal counsel that after the Port St Johns attack, you had cancelled other planned operations, do you recall that?
MR MAZWI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The cancellation was as a result of the call of the President. Do you recall that?
MR MAZWI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now, let's forget for the time being about the attack that did in fact occur at Port St Johns, what did you mean by using or describing those plans which were cancelled? What were you referring to?
MR MAZWI: I was trying to explain that it was not only Port St Johns that we could attack. It was not only Port St Johns were there were enemies, because example Kokstad, Durban, Port Shepstone, etc even though we did not make a plan at that time that we were going to attack.
I was just trying to explain that there were a lot of places that we could attack.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to attack there at some later stage? Be it Kokstad or Durban or wherever else?
MR MAZWI: If there was a need sir, we were going to go and attack there.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you intend to attack there?
MR MAZWI: We had not yet taken such a decision.
MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Why was there a need to attack at Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: It is because the comrades in Port St Johns had a problem. That is why we decided to start attacking in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: But we had understood that they had had that problem since the previous year, why did it suddenly become necessary to attack on the 13th of April of 1993?
MR MAZWI: That is why we decided to attack there, because we had received a report before about the problem in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: But you didn't decide to attack when you got the report, you decided to attack months later?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, we didn't take this decision when we got this report.
MR SMUTS: So what changed?
MR MAZWI: When we met with the comrades at certain times, it happened that they told us about their problems in Port St Johns. It is then that when this happened, we decided to go to the comrades in Port St Johns, so that they could show us the people who were causing problems in Port St Johns, the people who were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: You say it is when this happened, that you decided to go. When what happened, when this report was made?
MR MAZWI: Please repeat your question sir?
CHAIRPERSON: You say something happened and it was as a result and only thereafter, that it was decided to go to Port St Johns. The Advocate is asking what happened for you to decide that you must go to Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: What made us take this decision was that the comrades in Port St Johns reported to us that they had a problem. Nothing else made us decide to start in Port St Johns.
It is because the comrades there had already reported to us that they were experiencing problems there and then we decided to start in Port St Johns.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all? Is that the only reason why you went to Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: If I remember well, I can say yes because the comrades had already reported to us that they were experiencing problems there.
CHAIRPERSON: So your going to Port St Johns had nothing to do with the death of Mr Hani?
MR MAZWI: It doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to do with the death of Mr Chris Hani. I combined all this as one thing.
CHAIRPERSON: That is what I am asking you. Why did you go to Port St Johns? I am going to give you another opportunity to tell me. Why exactly did you go to Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: What made us take this decision to go and attack Port St Johns was because of the death of Chris Hani, and that there were problems in Port St Johns and there were people who were obstacles and they were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: Had nothing occurred in Port St Johns to your knowledge, between the first time that there was a report from the ANC structures at Port St Johns, dealing with the so-called problem and the 13th of April? Had nothing occurred in Port St Johns to move you to launch this attack?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't be sure, I don't remember clearly whether there was something that happened or not. But for now, I am not sure, I can't say there is something that happened.
What I am sure about is that the comrades in Port St Johns had a problem. The death of Chris Hani made us to go and attack and try to solve the problem in Port St Johns.
ADV DE JAGER: I am not so familiar with the area here. How far was this bungalow where the Weakley's were staying from Port St Johns, could perhaps some of the legal advisors help me please?
MR ZILWA: I could help. During the trial, we did go for an inspection in loco. It is not very far, but it is a bit of a distance on the outskirts of Port St Johns, but it is not that far.
Maybe, you branch off on the tar road to Port St Johns, you take a dirt road. It would be for about 20 kms, I would say. When you branch off to take that dirt road, that is from the main tar road, I think it would be about if I am not mistaken, about 10, 15 kms to the town of Port St Johns, before actually reaching the town of Port St Johns, proceeding from Umtata, then you take that dirt road. As I say, I am not sure, it could be about 20 kms down the dirt road.
ADV DE JAGER: So in total it is round about 30, 35 kms from Port St Johns? Mr Smuts, you clients, couldn't they perhaps assist?
MR SMUTS: I would have to take instructions Mr Chair. It is suggested to me that it could be some 40 kms from Port St Johns to the site.
Mr Mazwi, in any event, you then joined in the decision to go and attack the enemy which was to be identified at Port St Johns, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: That is correct sir.
MR SMUTS: And you armed yourself to participate in such an attack?
MR MAZWI: That is correct.
MR SMUTS: At the time that you as Self Defence Unit members decided to launch such an attack, you had no instructions or approval from any formation of the African National Congress to participate in such an attack? Is that correct?
MR MAZWI: That is correct, we did not get any approval or instruction.
MR SMUTS: In fact Mr Maxhayi's evidence was that the purpose of Self Defence Units was defense, not attack, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: So, the decision to launch this attack, was made outside of formal ANC structures, and am I - well, will you confirm that first?
MR MAZWI: The SDU's had not to wait for an instruction if they had to defend. I did not take this incident as an attack, I took it as a defense.
MR SMUTS: Are you serious?
MR MAZWI: Yes.
MR SMUTS: The decision however, was not taken by an SDU, it was taken by isolated members, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: Correct.
MR SMUTS: When you arrived at Port St Johns, having armed yourself to participate in this act of defence as you style it, what did you do there to identify the enemy against whom you were coming to defend yourself?
MR MAZWI: Can you please repeat your question sir?
MR SMUTS: When you arrived at Port St Johns, what effort did you make to identify the enemy against whom you had come to defend yourself?
MR ZILWA: Sorry Mr chairman, he is having a problem with the word identify, he is asking me about it. Maybe the Interpreter can explain the word to him.
MR MAZWI: At that time, at that moment, we were sure that when a white person appeared, we would take that person as an enemy, because of that place and under those situations at that time, we were forced to take the white person as an enemy.
Indeed a car came, and we identified the enemy and then the enemy was attacked by the comrades.
MR SMUTS: That is a bit ...(indistinct) Mr Mazwi, you didn't know when you set off from Flagstaff whom it was that you were going to attack, other than that it was going to be the enemy at Port St Johns, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: I was not aware, I did not know the names.
MR SMUTS: You have confirmed Mr Maxhayi's evidence which was that a number of white people were passed on the way and they were not attacked, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: There were a lot of white people, we didn't attack any one of them on our way.
MR SMUTS: Why was that?
MR MAZWI: We were aiming at Port St Johns, we were going to Port St Johns, we did not aim to attack people on the way.
MR SMUTS: You did not proceed to attack the first white people you saw in Port St Johns, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: We didn't attack any white person we came across in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: Why not?
MR MAZWI: We for example, we saw white people in town, but we did not attack them. We saw white people on the way to Umtata, and we didn't attack them.
MR SMUTS: So who was it that you had gone to attack in Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: The place we were going to in Gomolo, it is a coast where we found out that it is used by the enemy. When we arrived there, I was forced that if I see an enemy, if I had a chance, I would attack.
MR SMUTS: Is it your evidence Mr Mazwi, that from the time that you left Flagstaff, you - on route to the Gomolo coast to go and attack the enemy?
MR MAZWI: When we moved from Flagstaff, I was not aware that we were going to attack Gomolo coast. I knew that we were going to attack Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: Why did you not attack in Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: The comrades told us that we would be in trouble, because of the police and the soldiers, and we were also thinking about the safety of the people in town.
ADV DE JAGER: But weren't the people who caused the trouble, who had blown their hooters, who disturbed the meeting, weren't they in Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: They were staying in Port St Johns, but they were using the coast outside Port St Johns, according to what I heard.
ADV DE JAGER: So they are staying in Port St Johns, they caused the trouble in Port St Johns, but now you hear they are using the coast? So you proceed and you attack people who are not staying in Port St Johns, who are staying in a bungalow?
MR MAZWI: Maybe you don't understand me clearly sir. We arrived in Port St Johns, and we found out that some of these people are staying in Port St Johns, but the coast they are using are outside Port St Johns, they are not in town or closer to town, as for example Gomolo, we heard that Gomolo coast was used by the enemy.
We were forced to go outside Port St Johns because there were soldiers and police and we also thought about the safety of the people in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: Was this a holiday season Mr Mazwi?
MR MAZWI: Yes sir.
MR SMUTS: Was it evident that there were holiday makers both on the way to Port St Johns, and at Port St Johns?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't be so sure, but we met some of them on the way, they were coming from Port St Johns.
I wouldn't be sure that they were there, how many were they.
MR SMUTS: But you wouldn't have been surprised to find holiday makers in the area around and in Port St Johns, because it was a holiday time, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: That is correct sir. I wouldn't be surprised.
MR SMUTS: And that would also have meant that some of the people in Port St Johns who were on holiday, would not have been part of the so-called enemy who had disrupted the meeting the previous year, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: I wouldn't be sure about that sir.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you know the people whom you eventually attacked, were not holiday makers?
MR MAZWI: A lot of holiday makers, as I have already said, we met them on the way. They were going back to their places. That is why I saw that the people that were there, were the enemy.
CHAIRPERSON: ... most commonly used abode for holiday makers there near the sea? Why did you discount the possibility that the people you attacked were in fact holiday makers?
INTERPRETER: The Interpreter didn't get the first words of the speaker.
CHAIRPERSON: In that area, would you agree that the holiday makers make full use of the bungalow facilities in the area, not so?
MR MAZWI: As a person who did not know that place, I can't be so sure that they were using those bungalows.
CHAIRPERSON: In any event, you knew it was holiday time, and festive time, not so? You said so?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, in those days.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you discount that the people you eventually attacked, were not holiday makers?
In other words, how did you know they must be attacked?
MR MAZWI: Sir, I thought that the people who went there as holiday makers, were the people who had already gone at the time that the people who were left behind at the spot, were the people who were there to actually disturb our movement. Those were the people that I regarded as enemies, because they were left behind while the other holiday makers were gone.
CHAIRPERSON: On what day did this attack occur?
MR MAZWI: You mean the attack that we launched?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What day of the week was that?
MR MAZWI: If I am not mistaken, it was on a Tuesday.
CHAIRPERSON: That was the day after Easter Monday?
MR MAZWI: I think it was just a few days after the Easter Monday.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR SMUTS: And on your way to Port St Johns, you had passed holiday makers in the area?
MR MAZWI: We were going down, they were going up, using different lanes, opposite lanes.
MR SMUTS: But as we now know, Mr Mazwi, the people that you attacked, were in fact holiday makers, were they not?
MR MAZWI: I feel very bad about that because we didn't aim to attack the holiday makers. That was not our aim.
MR SMUTS: Nor did you make any effort whatsoever to avoid attacking holiday makers?
MR MAZWI: The way we were operating, we were not operating in such a manner that we could be able to contact the holiday makers, therefore we would not be able to protect or make it a point that we don't attack the holiday makers.
The area was identified, the area that we actually attacked was the area that was identified as being used by the enemy.
MR SMUTS: So was Port St Johns, Mr Mazwi, but you didn't attack in Port St Johns, and there were holiday makers in Port St Johns.
MR SMUTS: According to my knowledge, we did not attack the holiday makers. I only got that here today, we were just attacking a place that was frequented by our enemy, the place that was used by our enemy, the enemy that was there at the place at that time.
MR SMUTS: Is it your evidence that today is the first time that you have heard that the people that you attacked, were holiday makers?
MR MAZWI: I am saying that in the context that I am testifying here today that I can say, I can say it is not for the first time that I hear that here today, but I take it as if I am getting that for the first time because I am telling the truth here for the first time.
Therefore I admit that the people who were there at that place, were holiday makers. It is not that I am actually getting this type of information for the very first time in my life.
MR SMUTS: No. In fact on the morning when you arrived on the coast in question, you sent a party out, is that correct, to reconnoitre the area where these bungalows were? Is that right?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: And the party that you had sent out, came back and reported that they had found an old lady and a girl who were whites, is that correct?
MR MAZWI: The comrades that were sent there, they came back and told us that they had met a servant or a worker or a person who was working there. They did not say anything about an elderly woman and a girl, a white girl.
MR SMUTS: May I take you to the judgement in your criminal trial.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they tell you what the servant said, who was staying there?
MR MAZWI: Though I cannot remember well, the exact words, but they told us that they met with a person who was actually working at the place.
MR SMUTS: What was the purpose of sending that party out?
MR MAZWI: Firstly, most of us were not familiar with the place, the relief, the geographic area and what was actually happening in the place, that is why we decided to send some comrades to reconnoitre the place.
MR SMUTS: So the intention was for them to go out and gather information and come back and report to you?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: What did they report to you when they came back?
MR MAZWI: That is why I am saying I cannot be so sure about the exact words, their explanation because I had left to buy some food. I left with a car to buy some food.
MR SMUTS: Do you recall that a confession was proved against you in the criminal trial in the then Supreme Court in Umtata?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: The text of it is legibly recorded at page 81 of the judgement which is attached to the application paper bundle. I want to read to you from the text of that confession from line 14. Do you have it?
MR MAZWI: Yes.
MR SMUTS: It says, we went to a certain spot where whites arrived for holidays. Is that correct?
MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, I should point out that the witness has already indicated he is not very familiar with the English language. I am not sure if my learned friend is confirming what is written in the report, which the witness will not be able to confirm or otherwise, he is not familiar with English, or whether he wants to confirm the content thereof, if that could be clarified.
MR SMUTS: Can we take it one stage at a time Mr Chairman. Is it being interpreted to you Mr Mazwi?
MR MAZWI: It was just at the beginning.
MR SMUTS: Could I ask that that sentence be interpreted, which reads we went to a certain spot where whites arrived for holidays.
MR MAZWI: Yes, I can hear that.
MR SMUTS: Yes. Does that correctly reflect what you did, that you went to a spot where whites arrived for holidays?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, because it is what I heard.
MR SMUTS: And is it correct that that is what you said to the Chief Magistrate at Lebodi in the course of making your confession?
MR MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.
MR SMUTS: The statement then ...
CHAIRPERSON: Is the truth?
MR MAZWI: It is how, it is what I was told by the police from the Murder and Robbery Department, so I was supposed to put it that way.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it the truth?
MR ZILWA: Mr Chairman, just to get it clear the interpretation clear, he says that is what the police of Murder and Robbery told me, that that place is where the holiday makers go.
CHAIRPERSON: But is the contents, do you know whether the contents as it has been referred to by Mr Smuts, is it the truth or don't you know?
MR MAZWI: I said so, it is what I told the Court. That is what I told the Court, it is so, I said so. It is what I said.
CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you what you told the Court. I am not asking you what you told the police, I am asking what you have been referred to, is that the truth or not?
MR MAZWI: Unfortunately I am not a resident there at Port St Johns, I cannot say that was true or false, but that is what I got from the police that that place was for holiday makers. Unfortunately I am not from Port St Johns, that was my very first time to be there.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, have you got many more questions left?
MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, I want to canvass a number of averments in the statement, so it may take a while, so it might be an appropriate time to take an adjournment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can we start at nine o'clock tomorrow?
MR SMUTS: Certainly Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I hope the members of the Prison Services are able to bring the accused before nine o'clock. We will adjourn until 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
