Amnesty Hearings

MR MAPOMA: My name is Zuko Mapoma, the Evidence Leader. I call the amnesty application of John Ithumaleng Dube, Sipho Humphrey Tshabalala, Clive Makhubu, Precious Wiseman Zungu.

MR KOOPEDI: My name is Brian Koopedi. I appear on behalf of all four applicants before you this morning.

MR RICHARD: I am A Richard. I appear for the Dhlomo family.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee consists of myself, Andrew Wilson of ...(indistinct)

DR TSOTSI: Whitcliffe Tsotsi, attorney Port Elizabeth.

ADV SANDI: Ntsikilelo Sandi from Amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now continue.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson I beg leave to call the first applicant in this matter, John Dube.

ADV SANDI: Your full names sir?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: (sworn states)

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you. Chairperson, I will request that the applicant be seated. May I also mention that he elects to give his evidence in Zulu, and we would request the assistance of an interpreter. May I then proceed Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you very much Chairperson, we will take that opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Right you may carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: As the Committee pleases. Mr Dube, where do you reside?

MR DUBE: I reside in Pretoria.

MR KOOPEDI: Are you employed?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Where are you employed?

MR DUBE: SANDF, I’m a captain there.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that you appear with three others today, before this Honourable Committee, whereat you are applying for amnesty for the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR DUBE: Yes, that’s true.

MR KOOPEDI: When did this incident occur?

MR DUBE: This occurred in 1988 January, if I am not mistaken.

MR KOOPEDI: Now when it happened, were you a member of a political organisation?

MR DUBE: Yes, I was a member of African National Congress as well as a member of MK at the time.

MR KOOPEDI: When did you join the African National Congress and MK?

MR DUBE: I joined ANC in 1980 and I trained from 1980 doing various courses like general courses and I specialised also in other fields, in the military that is, especially I concentrated on politics. That a person must not be merely a soldier but be a political soldier.

MR KOOPEDI: Now for the record is MK Umkhonto weSizwe, the military wing of the ANC?

MR DUBE: Yes, that’s correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now were you ever deployed by Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR DUBE: Yes, as I’ve already mentioned that after the completion of my training I was asked if I could be deployed in the country, South Africa that is, and I said yes I agree to that because it’s one thing I was prepared to do that after the completion of my training I should be brought back to my country and fight the apartheid government of the time. I came in, or I came back, but I will face a problem here in as far as time is concerned because these things happened long time ago so I may be making mistakes here and there in relation to time, as to when this happened exactly in what year or month for that matter.

MR KOOPEDI: I’m sure the Committee will understand that, but when this incident occurred, the killing in Sicelo, were you in the country, South Africa?

MR DUBE: As I’ve already mentioned earlier on, I was infiltrated back into the country, if my memory serves me well I think it was around 1985 or 1986. The reason being I should have cells to train people and deploy them into the underground structures of MK. I belonged to a certain ...(indistinct) of MK, called special ops at the time.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, what operations were you involved in when you were in the country?

MR DUBE: I have a problem with my earphone, as for now I did not understand what your question was.

MR KOOPEDI: The question was what operations were you involved in when you were in the country.

MR DUBE: As I’ve tried to explain earlier on that my duty first of all was to train, to open, establish themselves her in South Africa and train people. Secondly, train those people effectively, and thirdly reconnoitre the targets, and the fourth one was to execute the missions that ...(indistinct).

MR KOOPEDI: Did you know personally, did you know Sicelo?

MR DUBE: Yes I did.

MR KOOPEDI: How did you know him?

MR DUBE: I knew Sicelo. I had a cell at ...(indistinct) at Soweto, around Soweto I had cells, especially I’m referring now to the one at Emdeni in Soweto. This cell consisted of the other three applicants, Clive that is, Sipho and Precious. Sicelo was one of them. When I recruited, he was recruited by one of the cell members that I was working close with, I’m referring to the applicants, my co-applicants, Sipho, Clive as well recommended Sicelo. But because before you join a cell one should recommend you and one should sort of second the move or motion, and we should inspect things, or monitor very close things like does the person in question qualify to join the cell, yes or no. Those will be the matters we will look close at.

MR KOOPEDI: Now after him being recruited, that is Sicelo, being recruited into that unit, did he obtain any training? Military training that is.

MR DUBE: I’ll have to explain or elaborate a bit on other aspects here. First of all, each time I establish a cell I will train the members. First I will have to get them understand exactly as to why we are in the struggle and what is it that we are fighting against. Secondly I shall make them aware and know very well the fact that there is war in the country. As soon as they are at rest I will concentrate on the political addressing and move on to train them on the use of weapons or firearms or guns. The reason why I would do that will simply be for security reasons.

I was from exile, or I was from outside the country, infiltrated back here in South Africa, so all the work that we’re doing was underground work. And as I said that the reason why I would train them on the use of firearms is to protect themselves, if need be.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Were you personally involved in the killing of Sicelo?

MR DUBE: Yes I was.

MR KOOPEDI: In what way?

MR DUBE: I was a commander. As I’ve explained earlier on, Sicelo was a member of one of the cells that I was a commander of in Emdeni, Soweto that is. It so happened, you see at the time I was not yet done with the training, military training. I was still in the process of training them, that particular cell I’m referring to, because there were many other things that I was teaching them. You will find that sometimes if I have to go I will leave some responsibility entirely on his shoulder, like leave some weapons, handgrenades, F1, for him to administer.

MR KOOPEDI: May I just interrupt you. Perhaps what is important now is to find out in what way were you involved in Sicelo’s killing. Were you present when he was killed? What was your involvement in the actual killing? Perhaps before you can go into the reasoning behind that.

MR DUBE: I issued an order.

MR KOOPEDI: What were the reasons for issuing that order? I presume that is the order that he should be killed, or he should die.

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Well what were the reasons for issuing such an order?

MR DUBE: The reasons that led to this order that Sicelo must be eliminated or be killed first of all were, Sicelo was a member of one of the cells that I used to command.

Secondly Sicelo I used to teach them that a person is not, or will not be allowed to leave, or is not to leave the cell and the members not knowing as to where he is or his whereabouts so that I was teaching them other words, in other words I was teaching them to be responsible and not leave the cell without furnishing reasons why he’s leave and where he’s going to. What happened was at the time, like for instant I will leave Emdeni to go to Diepkloof as I have already explained that I had units around Soweto.

It transpired at first that this is a matter of coincidence yet as a person whose highly experienced in this field I did not take it for granted at all. I took it upon myself that I would ask him, the problem I’m facing here is the time. I don’t quite remember exactly as to what happened and when, be that as it may though, I will try and explain other aspects. I met him in Diepkloof at first and I was quiet about it.

The second time around it so happened the same thing happened and I confronted him. I asked him as to why he was there and he said he was just driving around, but what confused me the most was when I at some time I was in Maponja and I started drawing conclusions that this man is conducting some surveillance on me, and that worried me a great deal, as to why he would be doing that and following my moves and me all the time. And one other thing that he used to do a lot was to hide from me so that I don’t see him or identify him. Each time I see him at such questionable place.

MR KOOPEDI: And would there be anything wrong with a person following you or surveilling you?

MR DUBE: When a person follows you, or when a person followed me, there’s nothing wrong with that, but that one was not an innocent following. And this thing of him hiding from me and not wanting me to see him, that is the very thing that made me so suspicious of his moved.

MR KOOPEDI: What did you suspect?

MR DUBE: First of all I was here in the country, an operative of MK underground that is, and in the same breath you find a person following you the manner in which he did, not knowing exactly as to what his motives were. As I’ve already explained earlier on that I used to teach and train my units and emphasise on facts and areas like one must be very responsible and you must always report to your co-members that you are going where and for what reasons. That we highly and explicitly emphasised. I don’t know if I’ve answered you.

MR KOOPEDI: You state in your application form that you killed, or you ordered that Sicelo be killed, because he was a police informer. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is correct, I did say that, but I am not done with my explanation as you’ve asked me earlier on.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, please continue.

MR DUBE: This surveillance is the one that brought suspicions about Sicelo. Secondly, Sicelo was arrested. He had in his possession pistol, Makarov pistol was found in his possession 9 mm, hand grenade F1 as well and I’m the one who gave those things to him. He was arrested with those things and that was brought to my attention, the fact that he was arrested I mean, and he was released after a few hours that I’m not able to say or state exactly as to how many hours. After that Sicelo disappeared from us completely.

I called the cell members after his disappearance that is, and I discussed this with them, and we were all surprised as to why was that happening, and we were all bothered about the fact that we could not predict the next hour. First of all we questioned ourselves that we must be very alert, vigilant at all times, and we have to be very careful and take care of our moves as well because we’re in the dark, we did not know why he disappeared. And it was bit difficult for us as well to establish as to his whereabouts.

One other thing was, the fourth one, I told the cell members to be vigilant at all times. You see often times I would not be with them, I was all over. It was quiet for some time, I don’t quite remember though as to how long, however, I think it took about three months, that’s the estimation, before we could see him again. What I mean is, after his disappearance the last time I saw him was when he was arrested and he disappeared subsequently. The next time I saw him was three months later, roughly.

One day it so happened I was at Clive’s house, I visited the unit in fact, that’s why I was there. We were sitting there at Clive’s house with Clive whiling away time because late in the afternoon we had some mission to conduct, and Sicelo came. It was in the afternoon when he came, and when he came and when he showed up I was scared, I must admit, I was shocked so to speak. We talked with him outside. Before we talked outside I told Clive, we were still inside the house, to phone the other cell members, comrades, Precious and Sipho. I remained with Sicelo outside at Clive’s house. As I was questioning him as to where he was coming from, as I was looking at him I saw something in his pocket. I could not see it exactly because it was in the pocket, I could that there was something contained in that pocket and I asked him what’s that thing in your pocket that fills the pocket that much, and he said nothing. And I took it out and I discovered it looked like a walkie talkie transmitters, one-way transmitters, and I threw it on the ground. It broke.

And Clive came out as he was still in the house, he came out at that point and I showed him that thing, that item, and I said to him you see what’s happening. What got into my mind instantly was that we have to shift immediately from that spot because I’d already seen that device that he had in his possession. I feared as to we could not tell what would happen next so the best we leave that spot and go to another spot. That’s when I took the decision that Sicelo must be eliminated, must be killed.

I considered first the security of the comrades I was working with, as well as the ANC organisation at large, also the fact that I was a commander of the unit and here I’m encountering a problem. I see it coming, and the duration as well that was not there, the time wasn’t there for me to communicate with others, or other leaders, so it was, it lined up entirely upon my discretion to take steps and I was mandated as a commander to take steps if I encounter such situations. I then left, got out, Clive had already called the other comrades by the way in the house. I told Clive to go and fetch them, Sipho, Wiseman as well, Precious that is. That when he comes they can find me at school. Fortunately Sicelo did not resist anything as we were walking. We went to a certain school not far away from Clive’s house, I don’t remember the name of the school now, I told them that that’s where they’ll catch up with us.

Shortly before we got out and I said to Clive in no uncertain terms that this person must be assaulted, he must be eliminated because if that does not happen we’ll be the ones who’ll be killed. Clive left and I was there the school waiting, and they appeared, they came and approached us and I asked Sicelo, in fact I told Sicelo we should go, we left the school, we went down and we got to the outskirts now of that residential area. We got there and I said to him upon arrival there at that spot he should sit down. He sat down indeed. Clive took out his firearm and shot at him. As soon as this was done the other comrades I could tell that they were surprised as to what was happening because they were not fully informed. I simply told them that we should go and I then started explaining to them that comrades do you remember that there is this and that, things to the effect that Sicelo disappeared, and I also explained to them further that I just realised that some device in his possession and it was a transmitter device so to say, and I explained to them the reason why I had to firmly take this decision that he must be killed.

The reason why that had to happen is simply because we have to be protected because we are in a guerrilla warfare here, we are operating underground and we are very few of us, we should at all times try to secure our position, and fight against, and protect ourselves against the people we are fighting with. I furnished that kind of explanation to them, and I further on told them that what has just happened must not be broadcasted, in other words it must lie low within us or amongst us.

MR KOOPEDI: Now why did Clive be the one who shot Sicelo? Did you give such an order? Is there reason why, when there were four of you, is there a reason why he was the one who shot him?

MR DUBE: As I’ve already explained that each time I trained my units, Clive was a commander first of all, I would have standing rules during the duration of my training. Things like I would train and teach them that in case you encounter such a situation like Sicelo’s the commander of the cell should be responsible. That was the reason why. So he was following the guidelines that I’ve set for them at the time.

MR KOOPEDI: So if I understand you correctly Clive was somewhat a person responsible for this unit and you would be overall responsible for this unit and other units as commander.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is correct. He was a commander of that cell specifically and other cells as well.

MR KOOPEDI: Now as you’ve told this Honourable Committee that you were deployed into the country by your organisation, did that deployment authorise you, or give you the authority to kill?

MR DUBE: I will explain by way of saying what happened here was I was infiltrated here in South Africa as a member of special ops, and I acquired experience in terms of underground operation that I used to do or conduct, and now I was in a situation where I was mandated.

First when I came back I used to receive orders at first as to what should be one, where should we refrain, in such a way that the way I used to operate now I was now in authority, in authority to choose the targets and use my own discretion, and pick on things and set the plans or actions to be executed, in other words, I was, I had the mandate.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that was only to do acts in furtherance of the policies of the ANC, you did not have a mandate to pick targets that you chose that fell outside those chosen by the ANC?

MR DUBE: Very true.

MR KOOPEDI: After this incident did you report this matter to anyone, that is your superiors in the organisation?

MR DUBE: Yes, I did.

MR KOOPEDI: Where did you report? To whom did you report?

MR DUBE: I reported to Lusaka, to comrade Aquino. He was a member of the, one of the commanders of special corps.

MR KOOPEDI: When you say you reported in Lusaka, did you go there, or did you phone there, did you write a letter, or what happened? Was it a personal thing that you did?

...(gap between tapes)

MR DUBE: ... was that if maybe you had performed an operation, I would leave the country, sometimes for logistical reasons. I would also like to explain that as I’ve already mentioned I would sometimes leave the country, go to Lusaka. I went to Lusaka to report because I hadn’t done so in quite a while. I met with that comrade and I reported the entire incident to him.

MR KOOPEDI: When you reported to him ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry ... How many days after Sicelo had been killed was this when you went to Lusaka to report?

MR DUBE: If I remember, it was months before I went to Lusaka. I think it was a few months thereafter.

MR KOOPEDI: Now when you reported to Aquino with whom was he?

MR DUBE: He was alone at the time. Because he were the only member of the special ops command who was present, and also because our operations were very clandestine.

MR KOOPEDI: In your sworn statement that you have put before this Honourable Committee, that is page 11 Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 6, you state that you then reported the matter to the then immediate commanders of special operations, that is Tommy, Aquino, Hein Grasskopf, and you also state that you reported the whole circumstances surrounding the incident. Who are these persons you’re referring to? This Tommy, Aquino and Grasskopf.

MR DUBE: Tommy Masinga was the overall commander of the special ops at that time. Aquino was serving directly under him. In the military we had a chain of command and as such I had to report to the closest commander in rank. I mentioned Tommy’s name because he was the overall commander of the special ops, not that I reported to him direct, but Aquino did inform me that he was going to report the matter to Tommy.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, so ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in Lusaka this happened?

MR DUBE: Yes it was in Lusaka.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say Aquino was the closest in rank and Tommy was the overall commander whom Aquino would have to report to.

MR DUBE: Tommy was the overall commander of the special ops.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us a bit more about Tommy. Don’t be so coy.

MR DUBE: What I knew was that Tommy was the commander of special ops, what I also knew was that he had once been a member of the auxiliary staff. What that entailed was that he would be in other states, other African states, and would be communicating with cells inside South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Tommy Lester Dumakude?

MR DUBE: Yes. That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Your co-applicant in the application yesterday who was sitting in this hall with you?

MR DUBE: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So why have you so carefully kept on referring to Tommy, Tommy? Didn’t you want us to know that? Are you trying to keep information from us?

MR DUBE: I knew him by his comrade name Tommy. I did not know that he was Mr Dumakude at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew it today.

MR DUBE: I learned of it when we applied for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, last year you learned of it.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Cause you didn’t make any mention of that other application for amnesty in this application form, did you?

MR DUBE: Which application are you referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: The application that was set down for hearing yesterday. The Ellis Park bombing.

MR DUBE: Is the question directed to the fact that I did not mention Tommy’s name in the Ellis Park incident?

CHAIRPERSON: You did not mention it in this, you had completely separate amnesty application forms in each event. You did not mention that you were seeking amnesty for other matters. You separated them completely, didn’t you?

MR DUBE: That is true. The reason being that firstly I did not know, or was not aware, whether the other comrades with whom I performed the operations had applied for amnesty or not. I submitted the application regarding Sicelo first, and I had wanted to meet the other comrades and discuss the matter.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, considering the facts, and given the chance, you know if we were to rewind time, would you give such an order today, if you were confronted with a similar situation, would you give such an order today?

MR DUBE: I will regard that question as unfair, because the situations are very different. At that time this country was at war, today we are in a totally different set of circumstances. I don’t know if I respond to your question correctly.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, you did. The ultimate decision that you took, do you think that there could have been other decisions available to you at that stage?

MR DUBE: At that time, I don’t think I had other alternatives. As I mentioned before, I was training those comrades in cells, and sometimes we would discuss matters such that if they were to go outside the country how would they handle the situations, and Sicelo used to indicate that he would not want to go leave the country. So I’m trying to illustrate the point that even if I were to try to hijack him or try to make him leave the country, that would have still be a problem.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Is there anything you wish to add to the testimony you’ve just given now?

MR DUBE: Yes, there is.

MR KOOPEDI: Please go ahead.

MR DUBE: What I would like to mention, is that as I appear before this Committee I would like to just say were it not for the political situation that was responsible for the death of Sicelo, we would have not taken such a decision. I would also like to say to the Dhlomo family that it was not our intention to kill him, or it was not something that we derived pleasure from, but it was circumstantial. It is actually not something pleasant to talk about, but it was the circumstances that prevailed at the time that actually caused the death of Mr Dhlomo.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that concludes the evidence of the applicant.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: My first question, Mr Dube, is how long did you know the deceased before his death?

MR DUBE: I would not be able to specify the time, because I am not sure about it. But I think I explained before just how I knew him. I knew him through the comrades who were in my cell, Clive and the other comrade.

MR RICHARD: How often did you make contact with that particular cell?

MR DUBE: I will try and respond to your question in the following ways. Firstly, I had many cells so it depended entirely on the amount of the workload that I had at the time. Secondly, when I was involved at the initial stages of training I made sure that I was with those trainees every day so I cannot give you a specific answer as to how often, or how much time I spent with them. It depended on the situation.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now, when you say every day with the particular members of a cell, how many days on an end? Is that five days, ten days, a month?

MR DUBE: I did mention that I cannot specify the days, but the time was not predetermined, it would depend if I had a few hours to spend per day I would do so. It depended entirely on the situation prevailing at the time.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless you stand by your argument, your answer that you would train on a daily basis every day for extended periods, if I understand you correctly?

MR DUBE: Please repeat the question.

MR RICHARD: I understood, and forgive me if I misunderstood you, to say that you would train the members of your cell on a daily basis for periods of time, and the impression I get is extended periods.

CHAIRPERSON: That was during the initial training.

MR DUBE: That is true.

MR RICHARD: During the period that you trained members of individual cells, you got to know those individuals well.

MR DUBE: That is true.

MR RICHARD: So that means, if I have a look at this cell, there were only five members in it, that’s yourself, the three other applicants, ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: There were four.

MR RICHARD: Four. In other words you don’t count yourself as a member of the cell. So that meant you would know each one. Where they lived, where they went to school, who their parents were, and their activities. Their day to day activities. It was your business as their commander.

MR DUBE: As I have already mentioned, a person would be recommended and then another person would have to second that, or give evidence to the effect that that person indeed was suitable for the job. I did know that, because as comrades we had to stick together, so that we would be able to work well together and build that morale. That is how I can respond to your question.

MR RICHARD: With respect captain, that’s not an answer to my question. My question is, quite simply, and my proposition is straightforward, did you or did you not know the individual cell members well?

MR DUBE: As I explained that I was training them so I can say yes I did know them.

MR RICHARD: And you knew exactly where they lived, their family structures, where they went to school and what their activities were. They would tell you.

MR DUBE: Yes, they would tell me, but I did not know their parents or their families in person. That was not my responsibility as such. I was the commander of the cell responsible for the duties, activities of the cell.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were responsible for your own security I take it?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So before you got involved with new members of the cell you would want to know their background, you would want to know all you could find out about them. You would ask all this from the person who was proposing them, wouldn’t you?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: So, my next question is, you say you were trained overseas, in Lusaka, outside the country, in the political and military skills of being an insurgent, an undercover operative.

Now, when you came to South Africa in 1985, 86 as you say, isn’t it true to say that on numerous occasions you would have to deal with the fact that members of your various cells were detained by the security police of the time? I would like to know how you were trained to deal with that phenomenon.

MR DUBE: Yes we know about that, because the police were working to recruit people to use them at the time. When I first infiltrated the country I established myself, I had to win the confidence of those people who were inside the country, so that it would not be easy for cell members to be recruited by the police.

MR RICHARD: That was not my question. My question was, you had a phenomena that many, many people were detained by the police. Various figures are given. At that time 20 000 people were in detention. Now you as a commander knew well that members of your cells would get detained. Is that not correct? Whether you liked it or not. My question is what were you trained to do with a person who was detained and then released?

MR DUBE: In my cell?

MR RICHARD: In your cell yes. I’m talking about the training that you got as a captain, a commander of cells, you spent a long time being trained. Did you receive any training as to how to deal with this situation?

MR DUBE: Let me answer that question this way. As I’ve already said that we would screen a person before they were allowed into the cell, that was the first point. Secondly, I had been outside the country for years, therefore I would not just approach anybody in the street and recruit them.

MR RICHARD: I don’t think we understand one another.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t understand your refusal to deal with this question. Wasn’t one of the great complaints about the system operating in South Africa about the ninety day detention laws? That the police were arbitrarily detaining people for long periods of time. Wasn’t that politically one of the ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: I did say that. Yes, it is true that people were arrested and detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it not happen to just about every political activist in the country? That at some stage or another they were taken in for detention.

MR DUBE: Yes, people would be detained.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what counsel is asking you about. These people who were taken in arbitrarily by the police, detained for questioning, how did you react to that? How did you treat them?

MR DUBE: Firstly, Sicelo’s case was the first where people, where someone was detained and released. If you mean that I regarded every person who had been detained as an informer, that is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We were just asking you quite simply Mr Dube, how did you react? How did you treat people after their detention?

MR DUBE: As I’ve mentioned before I did not have that experience until such time as Sicelo was detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the first person you had dealings with who had been detained by the police?

MR DUBE: Yes, he was the first person with whom I had had close contact.

ADV SANDI: In terms of, I don’t know why Mr Dube it has become such a difficulty for you to answer such a simple question. In terms of your training, whilst you were receiving military training abroad, how were you supposed to deal with a situation where a member of your unit or cell has been detained? What were your instructions? Did you receive any training pertaining to that situation?

MR DUBE: Yes we did receive training. Firstly, if a person has been arrested, personally I would say it would be risky to maintain contact with him. Secondly, I should try to get assistance with regards to information about such a person, about what was happening to him. It was also not easy for you to determine just by looking at somebody’s face that they were working for the police or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You seem determined Mr Dube to suggest again and again that people were working for the police. Are you suggesting that the thousands of detainees that have been referred to were thereafter working for the police?

MR DUBE: No, that’s no what I’m saying.

CHAIRPERSON: You are. You’re saying it was difficult by looking at their face not to know, to know if they were working for the police. Whereas my experience in those years was that people who had been detained were treated with courtesy, with sympathy, by their fellows when they were released from detention, and they were not suspected immediately of being police informers. What is your comment?

MR DUBE: It is difficult for me to respond to that because it depends mainly on the circumstances prevailing. With regards to my situation I was an underground commander and I would not have been interested in recruiting someone who was detained, because I, as I’ve already mentioned how we recruited members, that was the way we dealt with those things.

MR RICHARD: Very well. I will return to the point. But now my next question is, as a commander who was responsible for knowing about his men, what did you know about the deceased and his immediate experiences during the periods 86, 87? Were you aware where he went to school? What school did he go to?

MR DUBE: I knew that he participated in the student activities, he was an activist.

MR RICHARD: My question was straightforward and simple. Do you know which school he went to at that time? If so, what is the name of the school?

MR DUBE: No, I do not know.

MR RICHARD: However, you do know that he was a student activist, so you are aware that he was a member of Sosco, the Soweto Student’s Congress.

MR DUBE: Yes, I did know that.

MR RICHARD: Now as a member of Sosco do you know what his activities were?

MR DUBE: No. Because as I explained earlier on they had a commander to whom they reported directly. I didn’t know what his duties were at Sosco.

MR RICHARD: Now do you know that in May of 1986 the deceased left home due to various problems that were going on in the neighbourhood and in Soweto? Do you know the incidents, the period that I’m talking about, May 86?

MR DUBE: No.

MR RICHARD: Were you in Soweto during May 86?

MR DUBE: The fact that I was in Soweto did not mean that I knew everything that was going on in Soweto.

MR RICHARD: Well were you aware ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: I did not know Sicelo in May 1986.

MR RICHARD: I’m asking you a simple question. Were you aware of the Azapo - UDF conflicts in Soweto during that period?

MR DUBE: I knew about the conflict between the Azapo and UDF but I don’t know that was specifically in May. One other thing is that I cannot remember whether I was in Soweto or not at that time, and I do not know how the question relates to the matter at hand.

MR RICHARD: Well the point about it is that during the period June 86 to November 86 did you know the deceased?

MR DUBE: I did mention that I did not know him in 1986, I started knowing him in 1987.

MR RICHARD: Now why that period is important is that the deceased was detained during that period in terms of the emergency regulations. Are you aware of that?

MR DUBE: No I do not, I didn’t know about it.

MR RICHARD: So, is today the first time you hear that during that period the deceased was detained by the state in terms of the then emergency regulations?

MR DUBE: Because of the number of people that I worked with in Soweto it is difficult for me to say that I do not know whether he was or not, because I worked with a lot of people so that is why I said I do not remember him being detained.

MR RICHARD: Well do you remember anything about the deceased, in particular about his lifestyle, what he did during his life? ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go onto that, I don’t know about the accuracy of this Mr Richard. It’s a newspaper report of a police statement that he was detained in 1986 in connection with an allegation of attempted murder. The attempted necklace murder of a woman teacher. Did you know that?

MR RICHARD: I have corroborated that information, it is reliable.

MR DUBE: I do not remember that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely that is precisely the sort of incident you would want to know about if you were recruiting someone for a cell, that the police had detained him on an attempted murder charge, of a teacher? Very relevant background information I would have thought.

MR DUBE: Yes, it is important, but I, what I’m saying is that I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) and didn’t care whether you knew that sort of information, or you’re misleading us.

MR DUBE: Some things you would want to know before you recruit someone. As I did explain before it happens that you forget.

MR RICHARD: I beg pardon, I cannot hear the translator’s translation over my headset.

Proceed.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear now?

MR RICHARD: I can now, thank you.

MR DUBE: I said it was important for a person to know. The person’s background was important. But if such information did not come to my attention there was nothing I could do about it, therefore cannot be prosecuted for it.

MR RICHARD: Sorry, I’m waiting for the translation. I beg pardon translator, what did the witness say?

INTERPRETER: He said that such information was important.

MR RICHARD: I’m sorry I cannot hear the translator.

Sorry can the translator repeat.

I’m sorry I cannot hear anything. I can hear you and I can hear the Zulu, but I cannot hear English.

INTERPRETER: Are you on ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: It’s on, I’m on 2.

It’s now working, whatever’s happened. Sorry translator, I beg pardon. Could the translator repeat the witnesses last answer.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you’d better put the question again, I can’t remember what it was.

MR RICHARD: Please go back to the period of June to November 1986. During that period, and this where I was leading to, the deceased was detained and the applicant appears to be unaware of it. Is that correct? Were you aware? The impression I had is you were unaware.

MR DUBE: What I said is that I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: You might have been aware, you might now have been aware.

MR DUBE: That is true.

MR RICHARD: Now would you be aware that during that period as well that the deceased alleged and claimed that he was assaulted and tortured by means of electric shock and that while undergoing that ordeal he was pressurised by the police to become and informer? Because that was public knowledge at that time.

MR DUBE: I do not have such knowledge about the deceased.

MR RICHARD: Now, we proceed down history. Now were you aware of the deceased’s involvement in the making of a television documentary called Children of Apartheid?

MR DUBE: Yes, I was aware of that.

MR RICHARD: Now what was said in that documentary?

MR DUBE: What I knew was that he took part in that documentary but I was not aware of the details of the documentary.

MR RICHARD: So you do not know what the topic of that documentary was?

MR DUBE: As I said before, I just knew the title, that it concerned children living under apartheid, but what the contents of the documentary were I was not aware of it.

MR RICHARD: Aren’t you aware that it was specifically concerned with the conditions of minors in detention?

MR DUBE: I was aware of that.

MR RICHARD: Now in your cell member you have, in your cell you had a member who, after his detention, went to see his attorney Ismail Ayob and Partners, and made a statement reporting exactly what happened to him in detention. Wouldn’t you be aware of that as commander responsible for a cell?

MR DUBE: Please repeat the last part of your question.

MR RICHARD: As a commander of a cell, wouldn’t the witness be aware that a member of that cell had been to an attorney to report that he had been tortured and that he had been pressurised to turn as police informer?

MR DUBE: Are you referring to the allegation that Sicelo had been detained in 1986?

MR RICHARD: I’m referring to a number of incidents. I’m not going to break them down at this stage. Were you ever aware that that is what the deceased said of his experiences in detention? At any stage.

MR DUBE: I knew Sicelo from 1987. With regards to his being detained prior to that period, I did not know about it.

MR RICHARD: That is not an answer to my question. My question is very simple. The deceased at various times reported to various people that he had been detained, and that during the course of his questioning he had been subject to pressure to turn as a police informer, and that was not only in 1986. Were you ever aware of any such report concerning the deceased? It’s a yes or no situation.

MR DUBE: Well I am saying that I did not know about it.

MR RICHARD: Now, as a commander, wouldn’t that be of very material importance?

MR DUBE: Yes, it is important to know about such.

MR RICHARD: However, we have the situation that you, despite the fact that the deceased had told the world through the international media, were unaware. Yet you, the deceased was certainly not secret about his experiences in detention. But you didn’t know.

MR DUBE: I have already explained that I knew him in 1987, not before that.

MR RICHARD: I’m talking about events that happened in 1987, and that’s not an answer. The movie was made in March April 1987 and was broadcast later that year. But nonetheless your answer is you are unaware that that was ever said by the deceased.

MR DUBE: Yes, I’ve already said so.

MR RICHARD: Now the deceased was also active in other areas besides the Soweto Student’s Council. Do you know of any of his other activities?

MR DUBE: I knew that he used to work at DPSC.

MR RICHARD: What is the DPSC?

MR DUBE: I do not remember correctly what it stands for.

CHAIRPERSON: Now have you forgotten or did you not know?

MR DUBE: I have forgotten.

MR RICHARD: What did the DPSC do?

MR DUBE: I just explained that I do not have information with regards to the activities of the DPSC.

CHAIRPERSON: But again, surely you’ve told us that you got information about members of your cell. They had to keep in close contact with one another. They had to tell one another what they were doing. How is it you don’t know what that young man was doing when you say he was a member of this cell?

MR DUBE: I did say that I was the overall commander and there was an immediate commander of the cell who was responsible for all of that. I dealt directly with him, except for instances where I had to come and train the cell members. But in most instances the person who was responsible for the cell was the cell commander.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) did you have under you in Emdeni?

MR DUBE: Please repeat that.

MR RICHARD: How many cells did you have under you in Emdeni during 1987, precisely, because that is information that you must remember. It was your responsibility and duty to know how many cells you had.

MR DUBE: I don’t remember the exact number, but I can give you an estimation. They could have been five.

MR RICHARD: Five, and how many members were in each cell?

MR DUBE: Between four and five.

MR RICHARD: Between four and five. Now how many cells in total did you have under your command?

MR DUBE: I would have difficulty remembering because I did not operate in Soweto only, so it is difficult to respond to that question.

MR RICHARD: Was it five or six or ten or 20, or one or two?

MR DUBE: As I’ve mentioned before in Emdeni cell members would be between four and five, and in other areas there could even be three cell members in each cell.

MR RICHARD: My question is simple and you refuse to listen or to answer it. How many cells were under your command. It’s a specific question. I don’t see the difficulty. Approximately.

MR DUBE: I would have to think about this and actually try and classify areas if you want to know about all of the cells that I controlled. I could just give an estimation of roughly 20.

MR RICHARD: Roughly 20? And that’s the total number of cells under your command?

MR DUBE: Yes, that would be the cells in the PWV area.

MR RICHARD: So that meant on your basis of four or five members per cell there must have been between 80 and 100 in total that you were working with at that time.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you were in overall commands as I understand it, but the cells were separate units which had their own commanders.

MR DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Each cell had its commander and they operated as a cell, they didn’t operate jointly.

MR DUBE: Yes, in most instances I communicated with the commanders of the cells.

ADV SANDI: Yes but the question is, members of these cells, did they know each other?

MR DUBE: No, they did not. But sometimes it would happen that people from different cells would know one another.

CHAIRPERSON: This would just be by chance?

MR DUBE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard. Can you just explain one thing. When the late Sicelo Dhlomo, when his name was proposed as someone who could be recruited to become a member of your cell, what exactly was said about him? What information were you given about him? What were the recommendations, in other words? When the name of Sicelo was mentioned to you as a person who could be recruited, what were the recommendations about him?

MR DUBE: Firstly, it was mentioned that he has political knowledge. Secondly, that he hates the situation prevailing in the country. Thirdly, it was said that he could maintain a secret. They also said that he seemed to be quite a disciplined person who can be recruited into the cell.

MR RICHARD: So we return to the fact that at that time your concern was the activities and co-ordination of about 20 cells consisting of 100 people, and you were the person responsible for their activities. Is that not correct?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: If I ask the question if any one of those cell commanders had a situation arise in his or her cell, was it their duty to get in contact with you and to report the matter of concern?

MR DUBE: Yes, it would have been their duty, because he was the person who was in contact with the cell members. But this did not mean that other cell members did not have the right or could not initiate contact with their commander, the overall commander. It was difficult for them to contact me, so it would have been their commander who would contact me.

MR RICHARD: Right, now when did you first meet the deceased?

MR DUBE: I do not remember precisely when but it was in 1987.

MR RICHARD: Now what sort of matters would be reported to you as the area commander? Would you be aware of particular members of your organisation who had been prosecuted in Court, and were convicted or acquitted?

MR DUBE: I gave specific duties to each and every cell.

MR RICHARD: If one of your men got arrested and charged with attempted murder, would you know about it?

MR DUBE: Yes I would have known, because we could communicate.

MR RICHARD: Now would you know that the late Sicelo Dhlomo was acquitted of attempted murder on the 6th of December 1986? Or am I telling you something new?

MR DUBE: I did say that I was not aware of that.

MR RICHARD: Now later that year, do you know of any further arrests of the deceased, Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR DUBE: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Yes I’m saying after 6th December early 87.

CHAIRPERSON: You said later that year.

MR RICHARD: Sorry Chairperson. After 6 December 1986 into early 87 were you aware of the deceased being arrested again?

MR DUBE: I am not sure.

MR RICHARD: Now, if one of your men were arrested and charged with possession of a firearm, would you be aware?

MR DUBE: Yes, I would knew about it.

MR RICHARD: Now are you aware of any such incidents in Sicelo Dhlomo’s life? Being arrested and charged, convicted, sentenced, for possession of a firearm.

MR DUBE: Before he knew me?

MR RICHARD: During the first quarter of 1987.

MR DUBE: I am not aware of it.

MR RICHARD: So yet again even ‘though it was your specific duty and responsibility to be aware, you are unaware that during the first quarter of 1987 the deceased was convicted of possession of a firearm and received a five year suspended sentence. You’ve conceded that it was your duty as a soldier and all the rest to be that aware and to have that responsibility, but you were unaware, in other words you did not discharge your duties.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know him at that time? He has so far said he first met him in 1987, but he’s not sure when.

MR RICHARD: ... corrected on that one. Did you know him in the first quarter of 1987?

MR DUBE: I did explain that I do not remember the exact date. I used to work with many people and it is difficult for me today to remember minor and single incidents that happened a long time ago. Particularly when you have to question me on things that happened prior to my knowing him.

MR RICHARD: Well, did you know him in June 1987, or October 1987?

MR DUBE: My estimation with regards to the time that I started knowing him would be around May, June, July 1987. It is not something I’m sure of, but I’m just estimating.

MR RICHARD: Now you speak in your evidence-in-chief of an incident when the deceased was arrested for being in possession of firearms that you gave him, and being released shortly thereafter. When ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could we perhaps take the adjournment at this stage ‘cause I think that this is an aspect that you will probably be following up in some detail. A short adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

We were dealing with the various occasions on which the late Sicelo Dhlomo was detained during the 86 87 period. Where we had got to was you really didn’t know him before, if I remember correctly and I unfortunately didn’t make a note of it, it was the June, July period, mid-year that year.

CHAIRPERSON: May, June.

MR RICHARD: Is that correct?

MR DUBE: As I’ve already explained earlier on, he had his cell and a commander thereof, and I did not quite know him.

MR RICHARD: So when did you ever get to know him better?

MR DUBE: As I said earlier, I did not know the guy very well. I’m not very sure as to the time. This is why I gave the estimation as I was relating to May, July.

CHAIRPERSON: Well when was the cell formed?

MR DUBE: Please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: When was this cell formed?

MR DUBE: In 1987?

CHAIRPERSON: When in 1987?

MR DUBE: That’s exactly what I don’t remember.

CHAIRPERSON: ‘Cause I understood you to say that he was recruited into this cell by Sipho.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So presumably the cell was in existence.

MR DUBE: This is why I also say I have no clear recollection of this. It may have been that the cell was in existence already, but Sipho and Clive would help me in this one if they remember very well.

CHAIRPERSON: You see why I regard it as important. You have told us that when you formed a cell you would come and give it training daily. When you established a cell you would train the members and this would be a daily procedure over a period.

MR DUBE: What I think I could note in as far as this is concerned, is the period of four months.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you train them for a period of four months?

MR DUBE: I’m not talking about training, but I’m attempting to answer your question relating to the cells. I was simply saying it was four months later, after the establishment of the cell.

CHAIRPERSON: That he was recruited?

MR DUBE: Yes. But the problem I have now is in relation to the time, the months to be exact.

MR RICHARD: By October 1987 it is correct that you knew the individual members of this particular cell and had a working relationship with them. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now we go back to the DPSC, the Detainees Parents Support Committee. Does that help you?

MR DUBE: Yes, in reminding as to what those words stand for, yes it helps me.

MR RICHARD: Now what did they do?

MR DUBE: I don’t quite understand your question. In relation to what?

MR RICHARD: We know that the deceased Sicelo Dhlomo was active with this committee. I want to know what you knew of this committee’s activities. The Detainees Parents Support Committee.

MR DUBE: I didn’t know quite well, because the main thing that I used to do was what brought me back into the country, to fight.

MR RICHARD: So that means you, your answer is you don’t know what this group of people did.

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now earlier this morning you said that your training and purpose in the country included the objective of political activities as well as training in weapons and missions and operations. When you used the world political what do you mean?

MR DUBE: What I am explaining here is, South Africa as a country at the time was in a state of war. ANC was coerced to go out on exile, and was forced to be active in armed struggle and it tried to facilitate some discussions or negotiations with the system at the time, so that what I’m trying to explain to this Committee this morning is one of the things that I was expected, as my duty, to ensure that everyone understands his role, or they understand their roles respectively, as to joining the ANC and underground structures of MK at the time.

MR RICHARD: Does that mean that you weren’t interest in other support organisations that assisted and provided support for the ANC at the time, and for the members of your force?

MR DUBE: First of all I did attempt to explain why I came back here. I came back here for simple reasons of fighting. As I was in special ops my main task was to recruit cells, train them, and pull up their operations effectively. Mainly I concentrated on those things, plus security of all the comrades, or all my comrades and myself included as far as I was or I am concerned.

MR RICHARD: That is why I’m interested to know, if your comrades were active in other organisations besides the cell, wouldn’t it be important to you?

MR DUBE: What I did I will decide like for instance that he was also involved or he took part in the student organisations at the time, and I will withdraw them from such activities so we could concentrate on one effort, fighting that is.

MR RICHARD: So in other words if the deceased was active in supporting his fellow students who were in detention, it’s not an activity you would have supported?

MR DUBE: I could have supported it. I would have supported it as well, as I’ve said earlier on that they had their own commander and I also relied on the information that was supported to me by the cell commander because I used to liaise quite often with such a person.

MR RICHARD: But the point is that you didn’t know what the Detainees Parents Support Committee was, and you didn’t know anything at all about the deceased’s activities about it. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: So, now, you say that the commander of the cell was the third applicant, Clive Makhubu. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Clive Makhubu yes.

MR RICHARD: How often did you see him?

MR DUBE: We have our own way of communicating, using telephones sometimes. We will meet if need be. Now I am not in a position to explain and furnish exact information as to how often, maybe twice or three times a week, I can’t do that, but as I’ve earlier explained that earlier on during the training procedures I would spend most of the time with them.

MR RICHARD: So that means if it was May, June when you first started training that cell, is that correct? How long would that day to day contact have been?

CHAIRPERSON: He started training the cell ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

MR RICHARD: When did you start training that cell?

MR DUBE: I will reiterate the fact that I don’t quite remember. This is why I furnished you with a rough estimation pertaining to months.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever in day to day contact with the deceased while training him?

MR DUBE: At the time of training yes, I did.

MR RICHARD: And for how long did that training go on? Was it months, days, weeks?

MR DUBE: I would give them a crash course, that’s what I used to do, five of them. As I’ve said earlier on that you’ll find there where be a situation where I spend most of the time in a week with them. That was not the only thing I was doing by the way.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand what you’ve told me, told us, that is that this cell was formed some months before you met the deceased, and some months before he joined it, so you would have given training to the other members of the cell. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: What I’ve explained was because the cell was not formed at one time, this particular cell, the first person was Clive. From there he recruited Sipho, so this took time. It did not happen at once. As to how long, I don’t remember.

ADV SANDI: Yes but the essence of the question her Mr Dube is, by the time Sicelo joined the cell, which you said was already in existence by May, June, July, when you met him for the first time, Clive and Sipho, had they received training by then?

MR DUBE: I thought I’d answered the question. Yes, they were already the cell.

ADV SANDI: Who was the last person to join the cell? Did anyone join after Sicelo?

MR DUBE: The last one was Sicelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Precious had joined before him, had he?

MR DUBE: Precious joined before him.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he receive training before him?

MR DUBE: If I memory serves me well, I trained them at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were just the two them who received training from you on a daily basis?

MR DUBE: You see, Clive and Sipho were already senior to them in as far as training was concerned, and they joined the cell subsequently. First there was Wiseman, Precious and Sicelo. Then I collaborated this whole thing, because my intention was to get Clive to be able to train others as well.

ADV SANDI: Did Clive take part in the training of Sicelo?

MR DUBE: No, he did not take part in training.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. To revert back to the cell structure in Emdeni. Were there other cells operating which weren’t under your command in Emdeni at the time?

MR DUBE: I would think so.

MR RICHARD: Would you know about them?

MR DUBE: No.

MR RICHARD: So if I mentioned names like Reggie, Reginald, Andries, Timothy, Coulat, would you remember those people?

MR DUBE: Please repeat those names again.

MR RICHARD: Reggie, that was his nickname at the time.

MR DUBE: You mean Reggie?

MR RICHARD: Yes, do you remember the name?

MR DUBE: No, I don’t, not at all.

MR RICHARD: Sandile Edgar Bikani.

MR DUBE: I don’t know him.

MR RICHARD: And Promise Khosa?

MR DUBE: I do not know him.

MR RICHARD: So that means there were other cells in the area that you didn’t know about? I’m reading from a security force document that was handed in at another hearing. I’ll leave that point. Now, what we do know is, as by October 1987, you were familiar with the cell and the cell was operating properly and you were getting regular reports from its commander. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you recall any incident relating to the deceased that month?

MR DUBE: Like what for instance if I may ask?

MR RICHARD: Was he, did anything happen to him that month?

MR DUBE: What happened to him in October was the fact that he was arrested as I explained earlier on in my evidence. October 1987.

MR RICHARD: And when else was he arrested?

MR DUBE: October 1987. He was arrested in 1987, October.

MR RICHARD: I know that. Now was he ever arrested on any other occasion post October 1987, or detained, or made contact with the police?

MR DUBE: Except the October one that I referred to there’s nothing else that I know.

CHAIRPERSON: What was ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he arrested for in October?

MR DUBE: What I know is he was arrested at DPSC office, where they found Makarov pistol and F1 and grenade in his possession.

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone.

MR RICHARD: Who supplied you with that information?

MR DUBE: Prior to his arrest he was with me, and I gave him these things, and that’s was suddenly in media that he was arrested, so that featured prominently in the media that we he was arrested.

MR RICHARD: Now when did that, now was there anything else about that arrest that was particular? Was he injured in it? Was he treated well by the police?

MR DUBE: What I know is that he was released after a few hours. I can’t tell specifically as to how many hours, two or three that I cannot tell.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this also feature prominently in the media at that time?

MR DUBE: You mean his arrest?

CHAIRPERSON: And his release?

MR DUBE: That he was arrested with arms was not disclosed, in the media that is, but as to his arrest that he was arrested and subsequently released after a few hours, that featured.

CHAIRPERSON: So, but counsel asked you how you knew about his arrest, and you said it featured prominently in the media. You say there was no mention in the media of arms.

MR DUBE: Maybe I have omitted something that I should have explained. Clive, looked for me after he discovered that Sicelo had been arrested there at DPSC. And it was after I realised also from the news I went to him with regard to this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you go to?

MR DUBE: To Clive. Because he communicated with me in this regard that there is an emergency, he needs to see me, and I went to him.

CHAIRPERSON: And this was in October 1987 you say, it was prominent in the media. By that you mean the local newspapers do you?

MR DUBE: Yes, I’m trying to say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I think we should arrange to have enquiries made as to what appeared in the media in that month.

MR RICHARD: Nothing at all appeared in October 1987 to do with the deceased. Your memory is not that good relating to events eleven years ago. Now, could this have been in January 1988, the newsprint stories that you’re referring to?

MR DUBE: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: The newspaper articles that you’re referring to, could they have appears in the press later, in January 1988?

MR DUBE: Possibly, yes.

MR RICHARD: So that means you weren’t referring to the October arrest, you were referring to an arrest in January?

MR DUBE: I will explain once again that as Clive was a commander gave me a call I left my area and went to his as he had earlier indicated that this was an emergency, and he discussed, or rather he told me about this that the rumours had it or there’s something to the effect that Sicelo has been arrested and I, he deemed it fit that I should know about it as he was an person to Sicelo.

MR RICHARD: Captain, there were a couple of precise things you said. This arrest, as far as your concerned, certainly took place at the offices of the DPSC. Correct? Yes or no.

MR DUBE: According to my knowledge yes.

MR RICHARD: The next thing you say is it was in the press and that you read about it. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, I did say that.

MR RICHARD: And the next point that we’re at is that you’re uncertain of times relating to the period. We know that we, it’s a long time ago.

MR DUBE: That’s exactly what I said earlier on that some of the incidents I don’t quite remember as they happened, how they happened.

MR RICHARD: So what I’m saying is, am I incorrect that the incident that you’re referring to, and the press reports that you referred to, took place in January 1988 and not October 1987.

MR DUBE: It’s maybe possible that I’ve confused the issues here.

MR RICHARD: Because I put it to you that he was not arrested at the DPSC in October 87 at all, at any stage. Can you contradict me on that one?

MR DUBE: Yes I would contradict you on that point.

MR RICHARD: I would say it happened in January 88.

MR DUBE: I am maintaining the fact that Sicelo was arrested with Makarov pistol, that he got from me, and F1 hand grenade in October, 87 that is.

MR RICHARD: Because then you’ve changed your evidence. You say that it was definitely at the DPSC’s offices in October 87.

MR DUBE: That’s what I said, DPSC in 1987 he was arrested with Makarov pistol and hand grenade. ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: At the DPSC offices?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that there was no arrest at the DPSC’s offices during October 1987 at all, and I can prove that by calling members of the DPSC.

MR DUBE: I would like to emphasise once again that Sicelo, what I don’t know was whether he was arrested inside or outside, but I know he was arrested in the offices of DPSC.

CHAIRPERSON: You said he was arrested at the offices of the DPSC.

MR DUBE: That’s what I said.

MR RICHARD: I put it again as a matter of fact and record that there were no newspaper items in October 1987 dealing with the arrest of Sicelo Dhlomo. None at all. And therefore you could not have read that in October 1987.

MR DUBE: What I said was it may have happened that I’m confusing issues that transpired at the time.

MR RICHARD: And I then carry on to say that he was detained at the offices of the DPSC in January, and I’ll give you the exact date, the 20th of January 1988. Isn’t that the incident that you’re referring to.

MR DUBE: No, that’s no the one. It’s not the one because during that time January, that is around 20th 1988, that was the time when he had disappeared from us. We did not know his whereabouts.

MR RICHARD: But then you read of his detention in the press. Is that correct? You said so.

MR DUBE: This is why I said I may have confused incidents this year because earlier on I did make mention of the fact that there are many things that I used to do, so I would not, unless I’m made of special fabric that I could remember every incident and event and the sequence in which they happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how did you know that he had been arrested in possession of a Makarov pistol and a hand grenade and been released a few hours later?

MR DUBE: That I was told by him on the day we shot him.

CHAIRPERSON: You were told by him on the day you shot him, three months after the arrest. Is that what you’re telling me now?

MR DUBE: What I’m saying is after Sicelo’s arrest he disappeared. We did not know his whereabouts. We’re looking for him, as to where he was as a member of the cell. On the other hand there were other things that were in his possession that I had to account for, like Makarov for instance, and if a Makarov is in your hand we will not let go of you like that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don’t know then, you did not know you say. Are you now telling us that he was arrested in October but you didn’t know why? You only found that out on the day you killed him.

MR DUBE: Once again I’m repeating this point that I have already said that I gave him this weapons and subsequently he was arrested and disappeared thereafter from us. And I had to account for these weapons as I said again earlier on that the decision that Sicelo must be shot, I took it on the spot when he came to us that very day in question.

CHAIRPERSON: You remember that a few minutes ago in your evidence you told us, on oath, that he was arrested at the DPSC office where they found a Makarov pistol and a hand grenade in his possession.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say you don’t know that now. You only learned that on the day he was killed, so you had no reason, when you heard of his arrest, to suspect anything funny about it.

MR DUBE: What I did not explain I think, here, is to put together the aspects that Sicelo is the one who told me that day as to where those things were. Now my explanation combines these two things, as I am again saying that after his arrest I did not have or build any conclusions that he will be shot or what. I only took that decision on that day when he came to us.

ADV SANDI: What, Mr Dube, what exactly did Sicelo say to you had happened to his weapons, the Makarov and the hand grenade?

MR DUBE: What he said to me was they were confiscated by the police.

ADV SANDI: Where were they confiscated?

MR DUBE: One other thing he made mention of was the fact that he was at John Vorster.

ADV SANDI: Did he say to you when he was arrested at the DPSC offices he had these weapons with him? Is that what he told you?

MR DUBE: That’s what he told me, that he had those weapons in his possession at the time.

ADV SANDI: Before he told you that, what did you think had happened to those weapons?

MR DUBE: As I said earlier on, I kept asking myself questions one after another as to here’s a person he has disappeared and there are weapons with him and I had to account for those weapons. That worried me and bothered me a great deal. The answer was furnished to me when I was with him on the particular day when he showed up to us, all of us.

ADV SANDI: So it seems to me that the situation must have been that until the day he told you what had happened to the weapons you were all along assuming that he must have been arrested with the weapons, or he must have taken the police to the place where he was keeping the weapons. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: To tell the honest truth, I was confused, I did not know what the position was in relation to the weapons and it was a bit difficult for me to draw any conclusions as such.

MR RICHARD: Well let’s return to October 87. The correct version according to my instructions is that one morning he was walking to school, he was stopped by the police, and detained. During the course of that detention he informs his then attorney he was pressurised to be an informer, assaulted and kicked. He was released the same day. To stop the assault he fobbed the police off with the answer that he would become and informer, but on his release he went straight back to the structures around, principally Mr Ayob’s office, and reported the entire incident.

MR DUBE: Mr Who’s office?

MR RICHARD: Ayob. A Y O B. And that was noted contemporaneously at the time.

DR TSOTSI: What date was that?

MR RICHARD: I don’t have a precise date. 12 October. I do have it, I correct myself.

MR DUBE: Were you posing a question to me.

MR RICHARD: Do you know anything about that incident?

MR DUBE: I bear no knowledge of that.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you know that Sipho Humphrey Tshabalala, the second applicant, and the accused, sorry, the deceased, were good friends.

MR DUBE: Yes, that I know.

MR RICHARD: In fact they had been very close friends for a long time, for a number of years.

MR DUBE: That is what I know.

MR RICHARD: Now during that period when you say the deceased was missing and you did not know where he was, did it ever occur to you to ask Mr Tshabalala to go to his home and find out?

MR DUBE: He was in the same state as us.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean he was in the same state as us?

MR DUBE: I say that because we all did not know Sicelo’s whereabouts. We did not know as to where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not an obvious reason to go to his parents and try to find out where he was

MR DUBE: What I said because people of Emdeni, they were people of Emdeni, the three of them, I asked them to go find out about Sicelo’s position as to where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did ask them to go and find out. So why did you first say oh he was in the same state as us? Why didn’t you just tell us I did ask him to go and find out?

MR DUBE: I was trying to say that. I was trying to explain that. I was trying to say exactly what I said, by so saying.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson. Now, if I were to call Mrs Dhlomo, she would say that Sipho was treated like one of the family. He ate there regularly, he had meals there regularly, and she would also say that while her son might not have stayed at home continuously he was in constant contact, there was no secret where he was, he was attending to his normal activities, doing the DPSC and Sosco and SRC, moving around the township, visiting people in Baragwanath Hospital, giving them money, ...(indistinct), would you say you were unaware of all that?

MR DUBE: As I had said earlier on that I only knew Sicelo through Sipho and Clive. So that would mean Or will explain that they attended the same school and they were friends as well.

MR RICHARD: Do you know Joe Klaweli?

MR DUBE: No I don’t know.

MR RICHARD: For various reasons to do with his fear of the security police and being again detained and assaulted, the deceased was living with Joe Klaweli in Johannesburg. He wasn’t living with his parents but he was in constant contact. So you don’t know who Joe Thlaewele is.

MR DUBE: I did say that I don’t know Joe Thlaewele.

MR RICHARD: And ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, how do you spell the name of this person?

MR RICHARD: T H L A E W E L E. Mr Thlaewele was a DPSC worker at the time. Do you know any, have any information of that nature.

MR DUBE: I’d say that, and I reiterate the fact that I don’t know him

MR RICHARD: But to return to the October incident as you referred to. You are still certain that you did read about it in the press. You stand by that answer?

MR DUBE: What I said was in October, it may very well happen that I read the newspaper in January, or October for that matter, but I did say that I cannot recollect all the incidents, especially in their sequence, and my problem then was finding Sicelo and find out as to where he was at the time that was, my mind was preoccupied by that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have told us, and I’m afraid I do not understand your present answer, you have told us that this happened in October. You are quite certain it happened in October. And you told us earlier that it figured prominently in the media, that he was arrested.

MR DUBE: That I said.

CHAIRPERSON: In October?

MR DUBE: Yes, I also said it happened in October.

CHAIRPERSON: And then he disappeared. You don’t know what happened to him after that.

MR DUBE: Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

MR RICHARD: Did you make any approaches to the DPSC or request any of the cell members to make contact with the DPSC if you were so concerned?

MR DUBE: I said earlier on that I told commander of the cell, or I told the commander of the cell and requested him to look for him ‘cause we did not know what was happening, and to him.

MR RICHARD: Now, I’m going ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard I think your question was, the question you put to the witness was did he make any attempt to find out from the DPSC as to the whereabouts of Sicelo. I don’t think that question has been answered. Was anything done to find out from the DPSC offices whether they knew anything as to the whereabouts of Sicelo?

MR DUBE: From my side, I discovered that, I realised that it would be quite difficult. It would have been risky if they went there to enquire. Maybe it could have been a trick for us so we felt it’s not safe for us to go and enquire direct from DPSC.

ADV SANDI: So what was going to be done to find out where Sicelo has gone to?

MR DUBE: Things like enquiring from friends, or asking friends. His friends. Sicelo’s friends that is. In other words finding out from friends and going to the family, it was another difficult thing for me to do. It was not as easy to go and enquire from the family.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if anyone of you such as Clive, do you know if anyone of them ever went to the family to find out where this gentleman has gone to?

MR DUBE: No, I don’t know now.

ADV SANDI: Did you personally ever ask your comrades from your cell if they have taken any steps to find out about the whereabouts of Sicelo?

MR DUBE: I did as them from time to time during Sicelo’s disappearance, as to find out whether there were improvements or any latest developments.

ADV SANDI: What did they say?

MR DUBE: They did say that they had failed and they can’t tell me, or they did not know themselves as to where he was.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. You say that you felt it was inappropriate for either you or one of the cell members to approach the offices of the DPSC. Why do you make that statement?

MR DUBE: Firstly I mentioned that we were involved in underground structures of MK, and it was difficult for me to take a decision that one of us should go there because I thought if that person was arrested that would be another problem for us.

MR RICHARD: Now you’ve said you didn’t know who the DPSC was. Isn’t that really your answer?

MR DUBE: What I didn’t know was what the letters DPSC stood for, but I knew about it, but I was not aware of their specific duties, what they did, in detail, but I was aware of them.

MR RICHARD: Now, if I told you that there are photographs that I’ve seen of the deceased giving lectures or presentations on detention at the Anglican Cathedral in Johannesburg during October, November 87, would you know about it?

MR DUBE: No.

MR RICHARD: Now, let me also put another proposition to you, and that is that if firearms were found at Kotze House where the DPSC was operating, the DPSC would have been closed down with such speed, at that time, it would have been in the press and world news. So it’s essentially absurd to say that firearms were found at the offices of the DPSC. Any comments on that?

MR DUBE: I do not know.

MR RICHARD: Now, I return to your sworn statement, page 10 of the bundle. Does the witness have a bundle? He has not. At paragraph 4, you make this statement

"...The circumstances that led myself, Sipho Tshabalala, Clive Makhubu and Singon Gensini Zungo to take a decisive decision to eliminate Sicelo Dhlomo were as follows -"

It is the typed statement at the back, page 10 of the bundle, paragraph 4. Have you?

MR DUBE: I see it.

MR RICHARD: Now, who took down that statement?

MR DUBE: I wrote it.

MR RICHARD: You wrote it. Now when you say "...that led myself" and the others to make a decisive decision, is it correct to say that all four of you came to a collective decision to execute Sicelo Dhlomo? That’s the plain meaning of that sentence.

MR DUBE: Yes, I wrote that. We agreed together. But that is not so. The reason why I mentioned this was because these were all members of the cell, and this happened, we were all aware of what was happening, and it was a situation that puzzled and worried all of us. And also for the fact that we were all present when Sicelo was shot. Those are the reasons why I put it that way.

MR RICHARD: Do you agree that the meaning of the paragraph is that the four of you made a joint decision? That’s what that sentence means, in the affidavit.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is what the paragraph says, but I am the person who took the decision. I wrote it in this way because I was trying to explain that we were all involved as members of the cell.

MR RICHARD: Now, tell me, on the afternoon of Sunday the 24th of January 1988, that’s the afternoon before he was shot, do you know where Sipho Tshabalala was?

MR DUBE: I knew about that but I had asked Clive to phone them, that is after Sicelo had surfaced. He was at his home.

MR RICHARD: And where was Clive?

MR DUBE: I was with him at his house.

MR RICHARD: At what time?

MR DUBE: I arrived at his home between two and three in the afternoon.

MR RICHARD: And where is that house?

MR DUBE: It’s at Emdeni.

MR RICHARD: I read from a statement given by Sipho to his attorneys on the 28th of January 1988, he there says

"...I met Godfrey Dhlomo at about 3 p.m. This was on Sunday the 24th January 1988. I met him at Naledi. We were in a house in Naledi. George was the last to come. In the house was myself, Clive Makhubu, Joe and another one whose name I don’t know. As I said, Godfrey was the last to come."

Does that describe anything that you’re familiar with?

MR DUBE: No, I do not know anything about that.

MR RICHARD: In that case you would say that Sipho Tshabalala is misrepresenting his story in this statement which was taken in January 1988?

MR DUBE: ...(indistinct) what he said, but I do not know anything about that.

MR RICHARD: Now, on the day that you shot him, what was Sicelo Dhlomo wearing?

MR DUBE: I cannot remember.

MR RICHARD: Because here Sipho Tshabalala proceeds to say he had on a red T-shirt and blackish trousers, red shoes and red socks. Does that refresh your memory? It’s also consistent with what the police found him wearing, there they describe the pants as grey.

MR DUBE: I don’t really remember with regards to what he had on.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you described finding something on his person, earlier today, where on his clothing was this apparatus?

MR DUBE: It was on the left side of his waist.

MR RICHARD: On the left side of his waist. What did it look like?

MR DUBE: It looked like a walkie talkie.

MR RICHARD: Then why earlier today did you say it was in his pocket?

MR DUBE: I did not say it was in his pocket. I said I saw something bulging. That is what I said. I said I saw something bulging.

CHAIRPERSON: My note says, and it be checked from the record, "...as I was questioning him I saw something in his pocket. I asked him what it was and he said nothing." ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR RICHARD: Now, why this morning did you say pocket?

MR DUBE: I can say that it may have been a mistake, because one other thing that I did not explain was that he had wrapped this apparatus with a brown masking tape. He had wrapped it around his body.

MR RICHARD: I don’t understand. When you say wrapped it around his body, what do you mean?

MR DUBE: I mean that it was stuck around his waist with a masking tape.

MR RICHARD: So you’re saying that it was stuck to his skin with masking tape. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is what I’m saying.

MR RICHARD: So variously you’ve given us three versions today. On his waist, in his pocket, and now strapped to his skin. Is that correct? Which one are you telling us? I’ll leave that. The next point about it ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: When you took this walkie talkie from him did you take this strap that was all round his waist too? It was strapped to his skin round his waist.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is what I did.

MR RICHARD: Now, how big was this thing?

MR DUBE: About that size. About the size of that item he’s holding.

MR RICHARD: And you’re indicating a thing the size of a portable cassette recorder, or is that too big or too little?

CHAIRPERSON: He’s indicating the size of the things we have in the hearing. Has nobody here got a tape measure? You like me think in inches still.

MR DUBE: If someone, if there was somebody with a walkie talkie here, I’d be in a better position to describe or explain just how big this thing was.

MR RICHARD: What you say at page 11 of the bundle, that’s paragraph number 4

"...While I was discussing the issue with him I decided to search him,"

You with me? Now, you then say:

"...of which I asked permission from him and he never refused. While I was searching him I discovered small transmitter radios."

Small transmitter radios, that’s plural. What do you mean by that? For the record somebody has produced a measure. It’s twelve and a half centimetres by five and a half centimetres. Now, is that averment in your affidavit correct, that you asked his permission?

MR DUBE: Yes, I asked him what was that bulging and I asked that I should see it, and he agreed. That was when I unstuck this item from him.

MR RICHARD: Now could it have been an ordinary cassette recorder?

MR DUBE: It was not a cassette recorder, because I know one-way transmitter radios. It was something that I knew. I knew what it was and what it did.

MR RICHARD: But what else did he have with him when you searched him?

MR DUBE: It was the only thing I found on, in his possession, because after he had removed this thing I searched on his person that he wasn’t carrying a gun, and I discovered that he had none.

MR RICHARD: Did you search him thoroughly, in other words, all his pockets, the contents of everything?

MR DUBE: I removed this transmitter from him, and then I just felt him around to check if he did not have a gun, and then I threw this on the ground. I then removed the batteries.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I hear you say: "I’m not sure if I did or not, I know one-way transmitter radios"? Did you say one-way transmitter radios?

MR DUBE: Yes, that’s what it was. That’s what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is something somebody wears so somebody sitting a distance away can hear what is said to him. It’s not something that he can get messages on himself, he can only send out signals? Is that what you mean by one-way?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is it.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you find any money on his person?

MR DUBE: I do not remember, because I did not search his pockets.

MR RICHARD: If I told you that on that afternoon Sipho Tshabalala reported that he had the sum of R 830 on him, which he disclosed to Sipho and said that the money was to be used for the detainees at Baragwanath Hospital, and he was to pay that in on Monday, the next day. Now R 830 at that time was a sizeable bundle of paper. You would have found it if you had searched his pockets. Do you remember that?

MR DUBE: I do not know anything about the money.

MR RICHARD: Because on one version I will tell you that no money was found on his person after he was shot, and it would seem that somebody killed him for money. Now, so you say you have no knowledge of that money there.

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now for the sake of the record I’ll continue through Sipho’s statement. He continues to say

"...he had a radio cassette with him and the sum of R 830."

Do you remember anything about a radio cassette on the deceased at the time that afternoon that evening?

MR DUBE: Nothing. He did not have a radio cassette on him.

MR RICHARD: What time that afternoon did you meet up with the deceased, according to your version?

MR DUBE: As I’ve already stated I’m not certain of the time but I can estimate that it could have been around two, three, four, after I had been to Clive’s home.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you remember that afternoon, Sipho and the deceased drinking cool drinks and other people drinking beer? Do you remember any such incident? Women coming to visit and playing music on the cassette recorder. Do you remember any of those sort of incidents that afternoon, between the hours of 3 o’clock and 7:30?

MR DUBE: What I know is that I saw Sipho in the afternoon, it was already dark, that is after Clive had fetched him and I was with Sicelo.

MR RICHARD: So this statement made to the attorneys is wrong.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may I interrupt. I am not privy to the statement that my learned friend is using. I would wish to have a copy of such statement.

MR RICHARD: I’m quite happy to adjourn for five minutes while my learned colleague examines it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHN IDMEL DUBE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

For the sake of the record I would like to put in that this statement emanates from a pile kept at the historical documents section of the William Cullen library at the University of the Witwatersrand. It was amongst the papers together with a post mortem report prepared by the late Dr Gluckman. Mr Pigou gave a copy of it to Mr Moime last week, so, may I proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve all been given a copy of this document?

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve all been given a copy of the document. Should we call it something? A. ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Captain, during the adjournment, did you have an opportunity to read the document? Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Chairperson I see it’s ten to one, sorry.

Have you finished reading it?

MR DUBE: I have not.

CHAIRPERSON: Well should we take the adjournment then, and allow the applicant to continue reading it?

MR RICHARD: And I suggest we start at quarter to two, subject to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until a quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (Cont)

Mr Dube, have you had a chance to read that statement that I gave you before lunch?

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone.

MR RICHARD: Now, it sets out the activities of the late Sicelo Dhlomo the afternoon before his death. Do you disagree with what’s said there, yes or no?

MR DUBE: I don’t know anything about this statement, and what I will say is that this is not the truth.

MR RICHARD: So are you saying that your comrade Mr Tshabalala lied?

MR DUBE: What I will say is that he will explain himself as to what, under what circumstances he wrote and furnished this statement.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, just one thing which is not very clear to me. There seems to be two signature appended to the statement. The first one, it appears to be the signature of Tshabalala. Are you able to say anything over the second one?

MR RICHARD: I cannot give any comment on my knowledge as to the second signature. I’ve looked at it and, I can’t take the point further. Right, now, we return to your statement there at page 10 of the bundle. There’s a sequence of events that you set out there, which goes basically this way if I understand your evidence as read with this. My recollection, and I’m happy to be corrected, is that you say that Sicelo Dhlomo was fetched from his parents house that Sunday morning, if I remember correctly earlier this morning.

MR DUBE: I did not say that.

MR RICHARD: Where was he fetched from?

MR DUBE: What I said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say he was fetched from anywhere? You said he arrived at the house.

MR DUBE: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: I’ll leave it. So where did Sicelo come from? How did he arrive in your company that Sunday?

MR DUBE: He found me sitting at Clive’s home. I was with Clive at the time.

MR RICHARD: Do you know where he came from earlier that day? Do you have any idea?

MR DUBE: No, I do not.

MR RICHARD: Now where is Clive’s house?

MR DUBE: It’s at Emdeni in Soweto.

MR RICHARD: Now, is it near or far from where the deceased lived?

MR DUBE: I can say that it’s not that far, you can actually walk from Clive’s home.

MR RICHARD: Now, what time was this?

MR DUBE: As I said before, I’m not certain of the time.

MR RICHARD: Was it daylight or night time?

MR DUBE: It was just before dusk.

MR RICHARD: Now, at paragraph 5 page 11, after you searched him you say you took the transmitter and left him. What do you mean by that statement?

MR DUBE: What I was explaining here was that, after I had removed the transmitter I just moved it a little further away from him, and then I threw that transmitter on the floor. That is what I meant, not that I left him.

MR RICHARD: But then in the next sentence you say

"...I immediately ...(indistinct) to the three cell members in Emdeni"

So that means they weren’t with you.

MR DUBE: What I meant to say here, as I wrote this, was I was in Emdeni together with Clive, but I did not write that here. I was with Clive at Clive’s house, also to be able to tell Clive to phone the other cell members to come.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you write something that was completely wrong? Why did you say

"...I immediately rushed to the three cell members in Emdeni"?

MR DUBE: As I’ve already said that I think it’s I attribute this to the way I phrased and constructed my sentence in English, that is a mistake, or was a mistake.

MR RICHARD: So you then say that this paragraph gives the wrong impression, it’s not correct.

MR DUBE: You mean when I say what?

MR RICHARD: When you say you left the deceased and then rushed off somewhere else to the three members, to the three cell members. You say that this is incorrect? You stayed with the deceased.

MR DUBE: What appears here, you mean what appears here?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR DUBE: As I said, this is a mistake. What I wrote here is a mistake.

MR RICHARD: Now, you then proceed in the same paragraph to say

"...I found them also having suspicions about Sicelo Dhlomo."

What were those suspicions that they had, not you had?

MR DUBE: First of all Sicelo had disappeared from us. We did not know his whereabouts or where he was. Now that brought a series of questions to us. We did not know the position.

MR RICHARD: Now, I’ve established that you knew very, very little about Mr Dhlomo, and you certainly knew nothing about his activities, so when I say to you he was readily available and easily findable in Johannesburg, do you have any comment?

MR DUBE: I will not dispute that, because I have no knowledge regarding that.

DR TSOTSI: Just one question I want to put to you. Is it possible that at the time that you missed Sicelo, he was in prison?

MR DUBE: I don’t know.

DR TSOTSI: But is that possible?

MR DUBE: It could have been possible.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you say you missed him, what was the period of that year that you found him not available?

MR DUBE: As I said earlier on, that after his arrest in October, subsequently he disappeared. He disappeared until around January when he presented himself back to us.

MR RICHARD: Because, for the benefit of the Committee, I can say he was not in detention in October, November, for any lengthy period. But the period of long detention was earlier in the year, when it appears that was June to November. During that period there was a three month period of detention, in 86.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position now ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Please activate your microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position now that he had had no dealings with you, Sicelo Dhlomo had had no dealings with you for three months, you or any other member of this group?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If he had wanted to give information to the police he could only have given information that was three months old.

MR DUBE: That I don’t know.

CHAIRPERSON: If he had given information to the police they had had three months to act on it.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet you now, when you suddenly saw him after this gap of three months, decided you must kill him immediately. Why?

MR DUBE: As I explained earlier on that during this three months of his absence, we’ve been looking all over for him. We did not know as to where he was, and the condition he appeared in was questionable. He also had a transmitter in his possession. Those are things that led us to suspect and suddenly got me to decide that he must be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: If you suspected why didn’t you suddenly decide that you would have nothing further to do with this man, and that you would warn all other members about him, before he could learn anything that might cause you any harm?

MR DUBE: Here I will address the fact that I was the one present, and a commander as well of the comrades that is, and this thing happened in front of me, in my presence, in my hands as well. It would have been quite difficult for me to give up on him and let go of him like that, because this includes many other things.

ADV SANDI: Just to follow up something on this. You had mentioned Mr Dube, that you saw Sicelo at Diepkloof. When was that? Was that during the three months period he had disappeared?

MR DUBE: No, that happened prior to that, as I explained.

ADV SANDI: Was that before he was detained and released?

MR DUBE: This happened before the October incident of his detention, as I explained this morning.

ADV SANDI: You went on to say he was hiding himself. What did he do, how did you go about hiding himself when you saw him there at Diepkloof?

MR DUBE: When you appear as a person and he would realise that I have already seen him and he will disappear and hide, go into hiding.

ADV SANDI: Did you call him to, did you say to him he should come and talk to you?

MR DUBE: There’s been a time where I approached behind him, but I never even once called him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you never ask him to explain?

MR DUBE: I once asked him.

ADV SANDI: What did he say he was doing there?

MR DUBE: The answer he gave me was he had gone there to see a certain friend of his.

ADV SANDI: You seem to be quite suspicious about the circumstances in which you had met him. What kind of place was this Diepkloof? What is happening there? Who else was there? What time of the day was it? Why were you suspicious about seeing him there?

MR DUBE: First of all as I’ve noted, my work was very clandestine, and another thing is I was supposed to be always vigilant and secured. I would have to be very alert in case I fall into the enemy’s hands. When I walk around or drive around I will not have my eyes closed, I would have to be very alert. This kept happening, quite often, and he knew my position and the nature under which I was working, so those things brought questions to me and hence I was suspicious.

CHAIRPERSON: You just told us that you once asked him to explain and he said that he had gone there to see a friend of his. Is that the only occasion that you got an explanation from him?

MR DUBE: If my memory serves me well, that was not the only occasion. I think it happened twice, asking him, that is.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he give another explanation?

MR DUBE: The explanation he gave me was the same, very same one he furnished to me.

CHAIRPERSON: That he had gone to see a friend?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, this morning when you told us about this, you said the explanation he gave you was that he was driving around.

MR DUBE: You mean as I was asking him as to what he wanted there?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When I’d just asked you, you said the second time you saw him you asked him why he was there and he said he was driving around.

MR DUBE: As I explained, when I asked him, I will not have enough time because the first thing that will strike my mind will be my security, my being secured, and wondering as to why it seems he’s following me everywhere I go.

MR RICHARD: To continue on that line, if I say to you that early in 1987 there were suspicions about your integrity and the possibility that you were an informer, would you know anything about that?

MR DUBE: That I don’t know.

MR RICHARD: Now I also add on to that by your own admission you knew very, very little about the late Sicelo Dhlomo’s activities and movements or what he did with the rest of his life when he wasn’t with you. You knew nothing about his DPS, Detainees Parents Support Committee activities. What is odd about him being seen at various points in Soweto while going around his activities?

MR DUBE: Please repeat the last part of your sentence.

MR RICHARD: What is odd about the late Sicelo Dhlomo being seen going around Soweto? He was an active person.

MR DUBE: Earlier on in my evidence I did explain that out of all the cell members while I explained some guidelines to the cell members that each time a person will leave, the others should know their whereabouts, but that did not happen. That brought questions to my mind.

DR TSOTSI: Did the members of the unit live together, at the same place?

MR DUBE: They resided in Emdeni, not too far away from each other’s houses.

DR TSOTSI: And are you saying that if a member wants to go and visit his friends somewhere, he would have come get permission from the commander? Is that what you are saying?

MR DUBE: Not in that fashion, but at least for courtesy reason you should report as to where you will be going and when. Not necessarily to be granted permission as such.

DR TSOTSI: ...(indistinct) report to whom?

MR DUBE: To either give that to the commander, Clive that is, whenever he’s present, or one of the cell members.

NO SOUND

DR TSOTSI: Were there any rules set out, setting out the limitations of movement of members? Apart from the rule that they must know, one must know where they ... were there any other limitations on the movement of members?

MR DUBE: The gist of this whole this was to be accountable, so that you know and you are fully aware of the activities of the cell members more than anything.

CHAIRPERSON: How far are Mboyeni and Diepkloof from where he lived in Emdeni?

MR DUBE: Please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: How far are Mboyeni and Diepkloof from Emdeni?

MR DUBE: I don’t know, I know Diepkloof but I don’t know the other one, Mboyeni.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Diepkloof, how far is that from Emdeni?

MR DUBE: It could be approximately thirteen kilometres if I’m not mistaken. This is a rough estimation, in other words thirteen kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you say if a young man is going to visit a friend that far away for the afternoon and come back in the evening he’s supposed to go and tell his cell members?

MR DUBE: As I said, these guidelines we had set for ourselves, or I had set for them, to an extent that when one leaves one point to the other he must at least report that to other cell members, in case of accidents and other things that might transpire we should be aware, fully aware, of what was happening of the position.

CHAIRPERSON: What did the other cell members do?

MR DUBE: In relation to what, if I may ask?

CHAIRPERSON: Did they work?

MR DUBE: They had just completed school.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they work?

MR DUBE: No they were not working.

CHAIRPERSON: So they were all sitting around at home?

MR DUBE: Yes. But they will go to school to learn although they are not full time registered at school.

CHAIRPERSON: So were they still going to school?

MR DUBE: I will answer this question under uncertainty, but what I know is that, for instance Clive had just completed his matric.

CHAIRPERSON: When, at the end of 1987?

MR DUBE: No, beginning of the year.

CHAIRPERSON: Beginning of what year?

MR DUBE: 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: So he finished his matric a year before this incident, Clive did.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And Sipho?

MR DUBE: I don’t remember.

CHAIRPERSON: And Precious?

MR DUBE: Precious was at home.

CHAIRPERSON: Doing nothing?

MR DUBE: What I remember was he was looking for a job.

CHAIRPERSON: So presumably he was out and about trying to find a job each day.

MR DUBE: Sometimes yes he would do that, but he will report.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he supposed to go and report to the others that he was going to go looking for a job today?

MR DUBE: Yes, he used to report.

CHAIRPERSON: Why on earth were they interested in this?

MR DUBE: I already explained earlier on that, in case of accidents, now I’m referring to things like being arrested, being shot unaware, it could have been that were camping there at Emdeni and the security police had got in the way of our existence there, so I’m referring to such as accidents, in case of accidents.

CHAIRPERSON: And how would it help to tell? You have just told us that you heard that the deceased was arrested and you did nothing about it for three months.

MR DUBE: I did apply or administer security measures, that one must not stay at home full time as Sicelo did. It does not mean I did absolutely nothing.

MR RICHARD: Thank you chairperson. Now we know that Sicelo did go to school. Do you know which school he attended.

MR DUBE: I don’t quite remember.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember of the name Pace? Pace College? P A C E.

MR DUBE: Yes, I know that school.

MR RICHARD: Where is it?

MR DUBE: It’s located in Zola in Soweto, Zola in Jabulani.

MR RICHARD: And where is that in relation to Diepkloof?

MR DUBE: It’s quite far, it’s quite a distance.

MR RICHARD: Now, we also know that during that period, and if need be I’ll call the witnesses, that for the very reasons you’ve outlined, after October 87, Sicelo did not stay at home. He had been arrested and he wanted to avoid being arrested again, so he was staying in Johannesburg.

MR DUBE: I don’t know, as I said.

MR RICHARD: Now, we also know that Sipho Tshabalala was treated like a son by the Dhlomo family. Why didn’t he go to that family to find out what was happening, or if he did what did you learn about it?

MR DUBE: You mean by Sicelo’s disappearance?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR DUBE: I’d already said earlier on that we had the one cell commander and I spoke to them with regard to the fact that we should look around for Sicelo.

MR RICHARD: And the family will say, if need be, that no-one approached them to find out anything. In fact there was no contact from the cell and them, between the cell and them. Does that give evidence of any active search?

MR DUBE: I won’t have an answer to that.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, just on this very issue so that I don’t have to raise this question again. Could you not, could not one of you pick up a public telephone and you phone the DPSC offices and say can I talk to Sicelo please, then they will tell you if he’s there or if he’s not there they will tell you that he’s not there. Could you not do that?

MR DUBE: We could have been able to do that but as I told, drew attention this earlier on, the first thing that struck my mind was to think highly about the security of the comrades, because I did not know what the position was at the time.

ADV SANDI: Yes but one could do that without revealing his identity on the public telephone. You just say I want to talk to Sicelo.

MR DUBE: As I had said, my mind was preoccupied by the fact that I needed to secure my fellow comrades more than anything.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you needed to secure your fellow comrades, surely it was very important to find out where the deceased Sicelo Dhlomo was and whether he was in the hands of the police, because if he was in the hands of the police surely it was important that you and your fellow comrades should avoid the places known to him which he might mention to the police.

MR DUBE: I’d already noted earlier on that we, does not mean at all that we folded our arms and relaxed about this issue. The commander of the cell did try so much to search for Sicelo but all that was to no avail.

CHAIRPERSON: But you continued as you’ve told us to use the same houses, you were sitting in Clive’s house this afternoon, not doing a great deal for security, were you? The others were at their homes where they could be telephoned and presumably found if the police went there. That’s so, isn’t it?

MR DUBE: The first thing I did was to organise the base in Naledi. That they should be able to stay there. Those, that was the first measure I employed. Secondly it was for them not to be at home at all times. There should be a family member in place to inform them as to the developments at the time.

MR RICHARD: You make mention of a house in Naledi. Where was this house, what’s it’s address, this place?

MR DUBE: I don’t know the address but I know the house, physically that is.

MR RICHARD: Whose house is it, or was it?

MR DUBE: It belonged to one of the comrades that I used to work with in a different cell, because I went to explain to him about the position, or the problem we had encountered.

MR RICHARD: What is your comrade’s name?

MR DUBE: Joey is the name.

MR RICHARD: Joe, and he lives in Naledi?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now what went on in this base?

MR DUBE: This was my base where I used to stay sometimes.

MR RICHARD: So, when you say it was a base for the comrades, what do you mean? For your cell members.

MR DUBE: I don’t quite understand your question.

MR RICHARD: You said this was a base for your comrades, your cell members. In what way?

MR DUBE: I did not say that.

MR RICHARD: I beg pardon if you did not. Right, now what was Joe’s surname?

MR DUBE: Mabulelong.

MR RICHARD: Right. Let’s return to the transmitter. Did he have a non de guerre, nickname, Joe?

MR DUBE: I did not hear that?

MR RICHARD: Did Joe have another name besides Joe, did he have a war name?

MR DUBE: Joe. We called him Joe.

MR RICHARD: Right, now ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard. Was that his real name, this Joey?

MR DUBE: Yes, that was his real name.

ADV SANDI: Did you have a code name?

MR DUBE: Yes, I had one.

ADV SANDI: Did Sicelo have a code name?

MR DUBE: No, he did not have one.

ADV SANDI: Did Clive and Sipho have code names?

MR DUBE: What we discussed was if it so happens that we have to go to a certain place we will have to use pseudonyms, but we must not forget such names. However we did not have specific code names in this regard.

ADV SANDI: Was Sicelo at any stage ever given a code name? Did it ever become necessary for Sicelo to assume a code name?

MR DUBE: I highlighted earlier on that if we leave from one place to another one could use a pseudonym, but don’t forget that name.

ADV SANDI: Yes but that does not answer the question Mr Dube. I want to know did it ever happen at any stage that Sicelo had to be given a code name because you were going to be going to some other place together with him?

MR DUBE: No, it never happened.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Sorry Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Talking of code names and nicknames. The name Rambo, does that ring a bell to you?

MR DUBE: That is Sipho’s nickname.

MR RICHARD: Sipho Tshabalala’s, right.

MR RICHARD: Commander?

MR DUBE: That was Clive’s nickname.

MR RICHARD: And your names, you were variously known as Pat, is that correct? Silver.

MR DUBE: Silver was not known, but Pat was a name that was known.

MR RICHARD: So which one of the names did you use at the time?

MR DUBE: Pat.

MR RICHARD: Now, let’s go back to the transmitter. Would you please describe exactly what this thing looked like. What did the transmitter look like? What colour was it?

MR DUBE: First of all, that object was similar to walkie talkie, as I said in the morning. Black in colour, as this. Had an aerial.

MR RICHARD: How big was the aerial?

MR DUBE: It could have been long, as the applicant is demonstrating.

MR RICHARD: About ten centimetres.

MR DUBE: Roughly, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now did it have any switches or buttons?

MR DUBE: On the side it had a switch to use for switching it on or off. It had this on or off button on the side. Also a place for some to insert batteries in. It was a battery operated object.

MR RICHARD: What size batteries did it take?

MR DUBE: The small 1.5 volts batteries. Very small ones.

MR RICHARD: What we call penlights.

MR DUBE: I will say so. These are very very tiny small batteries I’m talking about.

MR RICHARD: Anything else about it?

MR DUBE: As I said it had an on and off switch on the side, and the aerial. Those are things I particularly remember about this object, and explicitly remember.

MR RICHARD: What sort of aerial, was it a piece of wire, or a rod?

MR DUBE: It was an aerial that you could attach on top. One other thing that I’d like to highlight is that I did not have enough time to inspect this gadget, analyse it and pay attention to details, because what struck my mind was to throw this gadget on the ground and break it.

MR RICHARD: You took the batteries out of it, why did you take the batteries out?

MR DUBE: I wanted to establish if it was on or off at that particular time.

MR RICHARD: And what did you find out?

MR DUBE: I discovered that it was on. This is why I immediately removed the batteries and threw this gadget on the floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find out that it was on before you removed the batteries, and before you threw it on the floor?

MR DUBE: Yes, I found out if it was on or off. I grabbed it and looked at it whether it was on or off and I did as I explained.

MR RICHARD: You say you looked at it quite carefully ‘though, because you wanted to know what it is. Did you find any other wires coming out of it?

MR DUBE: I did take a look at this gadget and I did discover it was a transmitter. It meant for me now to check if it was on or off, and soon after that I took off the batteries. As to inspect details like who the manufacturer of this gadget, the inventor of this gadget, I did not have time to do that.

MR RICHARD: Now, it’s very important for us to know whether it was a simple thing with an aerial on it, or whether there was more to it than that. From what I understand it was one consolidated thing with an aerial on it, and there was no more to it. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: As I said, this was a transmitter.

MR RICHARD: Now, what I’m trying to discover is whether there was a microphone. Where was the microphone?

MR DUBE: As I explained, I did not have ample time or enough time to check such details, whether it had a microphone inside, inserted in, or whatever the case, I did not have enough time to look at such.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that to come to the judgement that it was a transmitter one of the most important things was to find out whether it was a recording device, a microphone. It has to record, take in the sound.

MR DUBE: I did not quite follow you.

MR RICHARD: To put it simply, if this were a transmitter, for it to work it would have to have a microphone. You have not described a microphone anywhere on it.

MR DUBE: I was only answering the question of whether or not I sat down and inspected this gadget, but I was certain about the fact that this was a transmitter.

MR RICHARD: I’m examining you as to why you were certain. Why were you so certain if you saw it didn’t have a microphone. You haven’t described a microphone. How could the thing work?

MR DUBE: I did not talk about whether there was a microphone, but what I said is that I did not inspect this gadget to an extent that I even mentioned anything about the microphone, but I did not particularly say there was no microphone.

MR RICHARD: Now, you say you’re familiar with these items. Had you ever seen one before?

MR DUBE: That item was similar to the transmitters I knew.

MR RICHARD: From where did you know these transmitters that you were familiar with?

MR DUBE: In Angola during the training.

MR RICHARD: Now, these transmitters that you used there, over what distance could they transmit?

MR DUBE: They differ. They used to differ.

MR RICHARD: Well, this particular one. How far would its radius of effectiveness be?

MR DUBE: That’s my judgment no.

MR RICHARD: I will say that in preparation I made enquiries. If indeed there were such a device around at that time, the best information I can get is that it’s best radius would be about 500 metres. Would you quarrel with that?

MR DUBE: Yes, I would quarrel with that.

MR RICHARD: On what basis?

MR DUBE: Because oftentimes they’re not. You will find the transmitters the radius that is, does go beyond 500 metres.

MR RICHARD: I’m sure there are field radios that have a larger one, but for, let’s take this, I’ve been given a two-way radio, this thing. Can you see it?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: How different was the thing that you found?

MR DUBE: It’s different in that this one is big, first of all. Secondly, that one was flat. Thirdly, the other one from here down there that was the slot or the area where you could insert batteries and take them out, and the aerial also is different, and one other thing that I’m noticing here it had a switch button on the side. It did not have these buttons that are located upper on that gadget.

MR RICHARD: You described this device this morning as a walkie talkie. Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, he said it was similar to. He didn’t say it was.

MR DUBE: I said it’s similar to the walkie talkie. I was trying to give you as broad a picture as possible of the gadget I was explaining or describing.

MR RICHARD: Now, I’ll put it to you that no such devices were in use in Soweto at that time. Would you quarrel with that statement?

MR DUBE: Yes, I will quarrel with that statement, because that I had in my own hands.

MR RICHARD: Did you as MK use anything like that, if you had been trained on it?

MR DUBE: It was my first encounter with that one. I had never seen something like that in the past, but the use of walkie talkies, transmitters, I did.

MR RICHARD: I beg pardon, did you use them in Soweto at that time, in 1987?

MR DUBE: No.

MR RICHARD: Had you ever seen one of them in the possession of anyone else at the time, in Soweto?

MR DUBE: You mean one of them, one of who?

MR RICHARD: On of these transmitter things that you described.

MR DUBE: Please repeat that question.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever see another transmitter in anyone’s possession during that period, 87, 88?

MR DUBE: I don’t remember, and I never used to inspect people, or monitor people, if they had transmitters in their possession.

ADV SANDI: Mr Richard, just to go backward about two stages. Can you explain to me this question to the witness, so such transmitters were in use in Soweto at the time. Do you mean to say that they were not available in the country? I don’t quite follow the question.

MR RICHARD: I have made enquiries, and I’ve asked the question whether transmitters, whether they be wiretaps or whatever they described them as, were used in Soweto during 1987. The best information I can get is while they certainly were available in the world their use in Soweto would have been highly unusual. I can’t say definitely never, but certainly highly unusual.

ADV SANDI: But were they available in the country, according to your investigations?

MR RICHARD: They were, but

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

MR RICHARD: The best information I can get is that such devices could be obtained probably in South Africa. I can’t say they weren’t available in South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: It really doesn’t take the matter any further, does it. Certainly my experience of those days was that some members of the security force were very much more active than others who were able to obtain devices like that while others were not. One cannot say, it depends very much on the officer concerned conducting the operation just how much personal force he has to obtain things like that.

MR RICHARD: If necessary, which we will see. We will call evidence on what was available or not. However, you took the batteries out and therefore you were certain it was not operative. Why did you find it necessary to break it?

MR DUBE: The first thing that occurred to me was that maybe somebody was listening to our conversation, that is why the first thing that occurred to me was to break that gadget.

CHAIRPERSON: After you had taken the batteries out the gadget would be inoperative, wouldn’t it?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So the question remains, why, after you had taken the batteries out and it couldn’t work, did you break it?

MR DUBE: What occurred to me was that maybe I’ll get ...(indistinct) in trouble, that is why I broke it.

MR RICHARD: You say in paragraph 5 you took the transmitter. Did you show it to the others?

MR DUBE: What was the question?

MR RICHARD: 5 on page 11 you say

"...I took the transmitter"

I presume to the others. Did you show it to them.

MR DUBE: The person who saw it was Clive because he was the one who was present at the time.

MR RICHARD: And what happened to it afterwards?

MR DUBE: I threw it on the floor and I smashed it with a rock, and I threw it away.

MR RICHARD: Did Dhlomo offer you any explanation?

MR DUBE: What he told me was that it had been given to him, to keep with him at all times.

MR RICHARD: Now, you are aware ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who by?

MR DUBE: I did not ask him any questions thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely when he says to you it was given to me to keep with me at all times you must have said well where did you get it from, who from?

MR DUBE: As I stated before, that as he had that transmitter, and from the way which he resurfaced, as well as because of the political climate at the time, I felt that I would be, or I could be wasting time to ask too many questions because one could easily end up being in trouble.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn’t ask him where he got it from?

MR DUBE: I did ask, but I did not enquire about the specifics.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t get your answer, you didn’t enquire about what? Did you ask him who he got it from?

MR DUBE: He already said that he had been recruited, they had recruited him.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was he said they had recruited him?

MR DUBE: His response was it was the police.

CHAIRPERSON: So he said the police had recruited him, and you thought that’s where he got these things from, this transmitter from, is that the position?

MR DUBE: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Cause you see when you wrote your statement you said

"...when I confronted him about these transmitters he said they belonged to this friends."

A somewhat different version. You now say ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: His first response was that it belonged to a friend. That is when - at the point when I removed it from him. So when I explained to him what, that I knew what this device was, it was then that he explained to me that it had been given to him by the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Who had recruited him? Is that what you said a few minutes ago?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn’t you put that in your statement?

MR DUBE: Chairperson, I did make a point before that this incident took place a long while ago. I cannot remember the details specifically, because after the incident I did not record the details about what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking us to believe that you would not have remembered that this man told you that he had been recruited by the police and that that was why you killed him?

MR DUBE: I did mention that in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: You were mentioning earlier as I understood all sorts of theories that because the police had let him go early this meant that he was working with them. Now you have told us for the first time that he told you that he had been recruited by the police. I’m quite certain you did not say that this morning. Did he? I’m asking you.

MR KOOPEDI: Are you asking me Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Well no, he didn’t say that in so many words.

MR DUBE: That was one of the reasons.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard.

All in all, Mr Dube, as I understand what flows from your answers in response to the questions by the Chairman, you are now telling us that we should believe that at the time you were preparing this statement which was submitted to the amnesty Committee, you could not remember, you had forgotten, that this gentleman, Sicelo, had told you that he was recruited by the police. You had forgotten that.

MR DUBE: No, that is why I mentioned it in the statement itself.

ADV SANDI: It would appear from your evidence this afternoon that you already had the suspicions even before Sicelo was arrested, released, and then disappeared for three months. You already had suspicions about him.

MR DUBE: As I stated before, I did not know exactly just what was going on. It was a question I had on my mind.

MR RICHARD: When did you make and prepare this statement, this sworn, this statement sworn under oath as you entitle it. When did you sit down and type it?

MR DUBE: If I’m not mistaken I was at Shell House, but I do not remember just exactly when.

MR RICHARD: According to the information at my disposal, this was in 1997, sometime that year.

MR DUBE: I would not dispute it, because I do not remember exactly when it was.

MR RICHARD: And then ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: I’m sorry Mr Richard. This, are you talking about his statement? Wasn’t that sworn and attested to on the 28th January 1999?

MR RICHARD: The date that it was sworn and attested to isn’t necessarily the same as the date on which it was, and I would point out that the amnesty application number is 5310/97.

MR MAPOMA: Sorry Chairperson, for the sake of clarity. This statement was submitted together with the amnesty application, but they were all not attested to and signed at the time they were submitted, so they were returned to them to sign thereafter on this date.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Nonetheless, what we now have is a situation that while you were in Shell House in 1997 sitting in your office you wrote this statement. Is that a correct reconstruction?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What prompted you to decide then to apply for amnesty? What was your motive?

MR DUBE: The first reason is that the political situation has changed, we are no longer at, in a situation of war. And in the spirit of rebuilding the country and divulge all that happened during the apartheid era, those were the reasons that prompted me to apply for amnesty.

MR RICHARD: So you thought very carefully about it and you sat down and wrote the story as you saw it, correct? And then two years later you get asked to attest it, and you have been thinking about the matter, correct? Answer?

MR DUBE: Yes, I did think about it, but I discovered that there were a lot of details that I did not remember about the incident because there were many other incidents that I had been involved in.

MR RICHARD: Would you like to tell us about some of those other incidents.

MR DUBE: ...(not interpreted)

MR KOOPEDI: May I interrupt Chairperson. I did not understand the question, whether it refers to incidences related to this matter or any other incident that the applicant has ever been involved in.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood he was talking about other incidents he had been involved in.

MR RICHARD: I heard the witness say many other incidents. What were those other incidents, those many other incidents? Tell us about some of them.

MR DUBE: I was a commander of units. I have applied for the Ellis Park bombing. I also applied for amnesty with regard to the Witbank incidents. Those are such incidents that I’m referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the second incident? One was the Ellis Park, what was the second one?

MR DUBE: The Witbank incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Witbank?

INTERPRETER: Witbank.

MR RICHARD: Because here I have a statement by, a note of what was said, of a debriefing of one Mamasela, and he informed the taker of the notes that MK cadre Silver, would that be you?

MR DUBE: My combat name is Silver.

MR RICHARD: And the document reads

"...MK cadre Ithumaleng Malinga Silver allegedly responsible for the Ellis Park car bomb, the Hallmark car bomb, the Witbank car bomb, and now allegedly working for the security police."

Would you say that information is wrong?

MR DUBE: What I can at this point is that I am appearing now before this Committee because of the Sicelo incident. I was also involved with the Ellis Park incident. So was I also involved in the Witbank incident, but I do not know about the other incident.

MR RICHARD: The Hallmark incident was an incident in 1990, where the largest bomb in the history of the struggle was found in a building called Hallmark in Pretoria, before it exploded. For the benefit of the Committee, before I push for an answer ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: I do not know anything about the Hallmark building.

ADV SANDI: Mr Richard, just for my clarity, what is the relevance of that incident to the subject matter of these proceedings, the incident in respect of which he has applied for amnesty?

MR RICHARD: The relevance is that for a particular applicant to obtain amnesty he is compelled and obliged to satisfy seven points, one of which is to make a full and complete disclosure.

ADV SANDI: Should I understand you to say that he is obliged to incriminate himself in respect of acts where he may have been involved but for which he has not applied for amnesty?

MR RICHARD: If I can point to an act which the applicant or applicants involved themselves in, and for which they haven’t applied for amnesty, whether it relates to this specific act or any other act or which they have applied for amnesty, the fact that they haven’t applied for amnesty for everything immediately disqualifies them for the amnesty on the basis that they have not made a full and complete disclosure of what they have to declare.

ADV SANDI: I’m not sure if I agree with you, but anyway that can be argued.

CHAIRPERSON: Your problem is, have you any better evidence than Mr Mamasela’s statement?

MR RICHARD: Well, I have the debriefing notes of Mr Mamasela. They were taken in 1994 by the Independent Board of Enquiry, and if we go through the various notes, Joe Mamasela has substantially proved truthful in most of the stories that he did say in this debriefing statement. However,

CHAIRPERSON: You have put them to him. Could you perhaps repeat ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you perhaps repeat them so we and his counsel can have an opportunity to list them and his counsel can then if necessary take further instructions from his client.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) is that he is allegedly responsible for the first one, Ellis Park car bomb, secondly the Hallmark car bomb, thirdly the Witbank car bomb, and thirdly, as at 1994 working for the security police.

CHAIRPERSON: So it’s one other bomb which may be perhaps more relevant if we ever get to commence the Ellis Park bombing again, than it is to this one.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson if I may respond to this. I believe that much as an applicant has to give full disclosure for him to get amnesty, but this should relate, the full disclosure relates to a particular matter that is under discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, I further wish to say that in as far as my learned friend is asking questions which relates to other matters which are still the subject of amnesty hearings, I object to that and will advise my client not to answer those questions because this may prejudice him in the coming amnesty applications, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which is the intention. Which is why we do not give decisions until we have heard all the applications.

MR KOOPEDI: But like I said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The applicants cannot come and skate through one application and then later be shown in a subsequent one they have been lying, and if this, but the purpose now, he has put the question, is being denied, and I don’t think we should take the matter further at the present time.

MR RICHARD: It doesn’t serve any purpose to take it any further, but now from what I have said, do you deny working with the security police at any point in time?

MR DUBE: What I will say, wherever you got that information from, were you informed that that was part of my deployment by the ANC?

MR RICHARD: I have information that you worked with the security police. Is that wrong?

MR DUBE: That is not correct.

MR RICHARD: In what way is it incorrect?

MR DUBE: Mr Chairperson, I would like to consult with my lawyer.

MR RICHARD: I have no objection to you consulting with your lawyer, but I would also say that my next question is, you told Puleswane, a TRC investigator, exactly what I am telling you now. It’s your admission that I’m putting to you. I will lead his evidence later.

MR DUBE: What I will say is that I do not have a response to your question but I would like to see my attorney.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, if I may be given a half a second, we do not need to adjourn for this.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn’t the question be phrased somewhat differently, to indicate that you propose to lead evidence that he worked with the security police and that he now has an opportunity to deal with that if he wishes to.

MR RICHARD: Very well Chairperson. I will lead evidence at future points in the hearing that you worked in conjunction with the security police. Do you have any comments, or do you want to amplify, or explain anything in relation to the proposition?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to put a date to that?

MR RICHARD: I don’t have a specific date to put.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m implying was it before or after 1994?

MR RICHARD: Prior to 1994.

MR DUBE: What I can say is that I do not see a reason why we should involve these other matters because I have already mentioned that I’ve applied for amnesty in regard to Ellis Park and Witbank bombings, but with regards to these other matters that you are asking me I do not know anything and I do not have a response to them.

MR RICHARD: If I look at volume 3, chapter 6, of the TRC report, dealing with Transvaal and covert actions, the Commission there finds there was evidence before the Commission which showed that infiltrators were both involved in what they terms credibility operations, whereby the infiltrator would be actively involved in an operation, i.e., bombing, killing, etc., which in turn would provide them with credibility and show the people that they were, with whom they were working, that they were bona fide. See paragraph 364 which directly implicated the Soweto security branch in this particular behaviour. Now, what better method of getting credibility in your area than killing a supposed informer? That’s the proposition I’m putting to you. Do you admit or deny it?

MR DUBE: I have no response to that.

MR RICHARD: In other words you refuse to answer the question.

MR DUBE: What I’ve said is that I’m here, appearing before this Committee because I seek amnesty for the incident of Sicelo Dhlomo. Therefore the questions that I would be able to answer would relate to Sicelo Dhlomo’s issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Could perhaps be put more directly in the form of a question, that what he is suggesting to you is that you, the reason you have given for killing the deceased is a false one, and that you organised his killing for the purpose of getting credibility for you in the area while you were working for the police as an infiltrator. That is the question, is it not?

MR DUBE: Firstly, I believe that it is the first time that people become, actually become aware that I was involved in MK operations, or that, most of them do not know me. What I can say is that I was not seeking popularity. I did not do this for my own benefit. I was actually fighting for this country.

MR RICHARD: What I do not, Mr Dube, is that you have not denied that you worked for the security police on a date prior to 1994.

MR DUBE: What I put to you was that I do not have knowledge regarding that, I also said your sources of information where it was explained to you, was it explained to you that it was part of my activities as directed by the organisation? And lastly, there is no other question that I would like to respond to unless it is directly linked or has to do with the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR RICHARD: It is for the Committee to decide which questions you will or won’t answer, not your choice. My question put directly is the following. If an investigator while employed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission says that you said to him that you worked with the security police, would he be lying, yes or no? You haven’t answered that question.

MR DUBE: I have made a request before that I should not respond to questions that are outside the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR RICHARD: No-one has objected to my question. The Committee has not excused you from answering the question. I believe that your refusal to answer the question can be the basis of only one inference and that is that it is true, that you did tell the researcher, the investigator, that you were at one stage an informer.

MR DUBE: I repeat, whatever is outside the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo I would not like to respond.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that one of the reasonable reasons why the late Sicelo could have been curious about your movements is that he might have had suspicions as to whether you were an informer or not, and he wanted to check up on you, and that it went further, that once you were aware that you were being checked up on your status as an informer for the South African police would have been compromised. And therefore you killed him.

MR DUBE: That is not true.

MR RICHARD: But then why won’t you deny or admit that you were an informer? You’ve already refused to answer the question, it’s too late now.

MR DUBE: I explained before that I’ve never been an informer. That is all I’m prepared to say.

CHAIRPERSON: The question has changed somewhat, as I recollect it. What was put to you originally was that you worked with the security police, and my recollection is that you denied having done that. It wasn’t at that stage an informer it was specifically that you had worked with the security police, and you have denied that. That is so, isn’t it?

MR DUBE: Yes, I do deny it.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever a double agent?

MR DUBE: I think I’ve responded to your question.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever a double agent?

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, and I speak subject to correction, the purpose of this questioning is not in the abstract to show that you worked for the police or were a double agent, but it goes further than that. It’s to provide a motive for you having arranged the killing of the deceased. It is directly linked to the deceased in that it seems that it is going to be argued that your working with the security police, there was a danger of this becoming known and for that reason you arranged the killing of the deceased, also for the purpose of enhancing your reputation in the area. Do you understand that is, as I understand it, why counsel is asking these questions. It is linked to the death of the deceased and I think that is why your attorney hasn’t objected. This is not just an abstract attack.

MR KOOPEDI: May I interpose Chairperson? I believe somewhat of this question was answered, in the sense that I recall the applicant saying that, in replying my learned friend, that wherever you got that information, that is also where you should have got an information that I was deployed there. These are, these were his words. So in a certain sense I believe the question has been answered and I am not sure why is the question taken further. And, you know, for what it is worth, I should comment that it appears my learned friend’s questioning is now corroborating the fact that Sicelo was surveilling the applicant. Yes. That’s what I wanted to say.

ADV SANDI: Just to put my understanding of his response to your questions on record. I think he, as I understand him, he denies that he killed the deceased for the reasons you are suggesting to him. He’s denying that. Unless you want to take it further.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us proceed.

MR RICHARD: I would like to understand Mr Dube, what your legal representative means when he says you were deployed there. It is correct, you did use that expression. What do you mean by deployed there?

MR DUBE: That’s one other thing I will address once again, I will go back to the words I have used earlier on that I am not going to attempt to answer any question outside the issue of Sicelo, because I am sitting her applying in, with regard to Sicelo’s issue.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) not an answer to my question, what do you mean by the word deployed? Who deployed you? When did they deploy you? Where did they deploy you?

MR DUBE: I will like to emphasise the fact that I am not going to answer any question outside Sicelo Dhlomo’s issue.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve endeavoured to explain to you that a great deal of this may be inside that issue. Your counsel has referred to your use of the word deployed. I regret I do not have a note of precisely where you used it. The question is simply what you meant by the word deploy. Now that would be in the context in which it was used.

MR RICHARD: What do you mean by the word deploy?

MR DUBE: Deploy varies. I will take a person, this is an illustration he is giving, for the purpose of this illustration I will take two opposing groups that are fighting each other. You will know that you will take the people to the front line, deploy them in such a way that you get their plans as to what has to be discussed revolving around that subject, what do they have in mind regarding you.

MR RICHARD: I understand now that you understand the meaning of deploy. Who deployed you where? When?

MR DUBE: I will emphasise again or I will reiterate the fact that as I have tried to give you the answer to your question.

MR RICHARD: When your legal representative used the phrase you were deployed, I wanted you to explain what was meant. I don’t understand what is meant or what your answers to my questions mean. Who deployed you, where? In relation to the questions that I’ve asked relating to the security police.

MR DUBE: As I said earlier on that deploy may vary.

ADV SANDI: Mr Dube I think this is a very simple question. Were you at any stage ever deployed by anyone, and if yes, who was that, and where was it that you were deployed?

MR DUBE: With regards to what, if I may ask?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is a simple one. Were you deployed by anyone in the political field in the context we are talking about, and if so by whom and where and when?

MR DUBE: What I will explain, or I will attempt to explain here, is that each time I refer to deployment I mean varying situations. One is able to take a person that he works with, or I will take a person that I work with and deploy that particular person to the enemy side so to be able to get information and their plans and their activities, their events. So this deployment I referring to now relates to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: So did someone take you and deploy you to the enemy side to get information?

MR DUBE: I think I have answered this question, because I said earlier on, no.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson may I intervene here. I wish to say that you know we’ve consulted on this very aspect for a long time, and from the consultation I realise why the applicant will be hesitant to respond to these questions. May I be allowed to explain to him what is, you know, what is it that he can let out?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: None at all.

CHAIRPERSON: How long with it take?

MR KOOPEDI: I don’t think it will be long, you don’t need to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: May the speakers switch on their microphones?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dube what is your answer?

MR DUBE: The answer is, in this deployment I’m talking about I’m referred to, this happened in 1991 or took place in 1991, if my memory serves me right, it could well have been around, I don’t quite remember the time but it happened around 1991. It implicates many people that I’m not in a position to disclose their names at this point in time. This is why I am not in a position to discuss any name or to disclose any name for that matter in relation to this question, so that I don’t see any relevant in 1987. There’s no correlation in the two things that occurred in these two years, 1987 and 1991.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dhlomo there were suspicions, Mr Dube, there were suspicions in 1987 as to whether you were an informer or not, and there was debates in the Dhlomo household about that issue, and it then transpires that you were, as you say, deployed at some other point in time. It’s only a matter of definition as to when you were an informer. The suspicion is there at all times. That’s the relevance. So, when you say that you were deployed in 1991 I take it that at that stage you were working with the security police.

MR DUBE: What I said in my question, well if that’s the way you perceive it, that’s your right, your democratic right to do so, but what I’m saying to you is the answer you wanted I did give you.

ADV SANDI: Yes but Mr Dube that is still very vague to me. Let us put the question that has been put to you, in a slightly different way. What is it that you’re talking about that you say happened in 1991? This deployment, what happened?

MR DUBE: I did try to explain the word deployment, and how it functioned, for a person to find himself deployed, it will happen in such a way that you are in a position to get and gather more information that will be helpful, invaluable information in other words, that will be helpful to the opposing group.

ADV SANDI: So do I understand, would I be correct to understand that to mean that in 1991 you infiltrated the security police?

MR DUBE: That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain, that I infiltrated the police.

ADV SANDI: These many people you said you are not prepared to mention their names, in what way were they involved in this infiltration of yours of the police in 1991?

MR DUBE: They were involved in a sense that they commanded me.

ADV SANDI: Is that to say that they had sent you, or instructed you, to infiltrate the security police?

MR DUBE: As I explained, that was deployment, yes.

MR RICHARD: So if Mrs Dhlomo says that in and during 1987 she intervened with you who were in and about her house and said that one Pat, which is your alias, should not be killed as an informer because the evidence was not sufficient in her opinion for such a drastic decision, what would you say?

MR DUBE: That was up to her.

MR RICHARD: And then we go to 1991 and we find that the information that was being debated had some substance in it, while people might not have understood it properly, proximity to the police had at that stage become real. Correct?

MR DUBE: I had said that long time ago.

MR RICHARD: Now the question is, how did you infiltrate the police and what information did you give them?

MR DUBE: I will backtrack a bit. I think we are playing a merry go round here, because I earlier on highlighted that I will answer you, and I answered you. It was what I was willing to do, to look into this matter, as I’m an applicant in this matter, as I said to you earlier on.

MR RICHARD: You infiltrated the South African police, which is what we hear now. My question to you, is how did you do it? One of the most obvious methods that you used to do it was to give them information so that they would begin to trust you. How did you do it?

MR DUBE: I have no answer to that question thereon.

MR RICHARD: So that means this Committee must leave this point on the assumption that you did give the police information that they found useful so that the police would believe you. No reply.

MR DUBE: I did not get the question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, as I understand it, that you did give the police information that they would find useful, in 1991. Now I don’t want to go into this in detail, I’m trying to clarify at the moment. Do I understand what you have said, and I appreciate what you mean about going round a merry go round, that you were instructed in 1991 to infiltrate, your instructions covered how you were to do it, and it is for that reason you do not want to say, because that would involve you naming other people who told you what to do?

MR DUBE: What I’m saying is I don’t agree with the words the attorney, Mr Richard that is, has uttered.

CHAIRPERSON: But you confirm, do you, that you had not prior to 1991 worked with the police in any way?

MR DUBE: As I said, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now would you be able to produce proof through the ANC that you were so instructed in 1991?

MR DUBE: Yes. But not now.

MR RICHARD: Well, who could we call to come and give evidence on it?

MR DUBE: I have said ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: Mr Richard, excuse me, what would be the purpose of that evidence?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson the purpose of that evidence is this much, that while the answer is that prior to 1991 he was not working with the police, that’s merely his ipse dixit. Now we also know that in the course of the activities of a plant, a double agent, whatever one wants to call the person, it’s a trade-off. The person will have to give evidence to the South African Police in return for their trust. That’s how he would make his penetration and make himself useful.

Now firstly, what information was he giving, which means per se that he’s an informer. Number two what information was being sacrificed, and we go back to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report, wasn’t this one of those credibility operations? So when I ask the question when did all these things happen it’s critical to know.

DR TSOTSI: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on.

DR TSOTSI: How is that information that you’re seeking to establish related to the proceedings in this case?

MR RICHARD: In this case the applicants seek amnesty for the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo. They say they were justified in killing the deceased on the basis that he was an informer. Now, once we find that the finger points the other way as well, that this witness was also by and by his own admission involved in informing, the first question we have to ask is when did it start. One can only be highly cynical about any statement that the witness makes. And it is all relevant to the enquiry as to why they killed the late Sicelo Dhlomo.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you have no other evidence, what is the point of it? You have no evidence, as I understand it, relating to his actions as an informer if there were any such, in 1987.

MR RICHARD: The only information I have ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not activated.

MR RICHARD: The only information I have is what the deceased’s mother gives me in consultation, and that is that in 1987 she had to intercede with young men in defence of the person known as Pat.

CHAIRPERSON: He has conceded that, and that’s an end.

MR RICHARD: And on that I will proceed to a further point. Right. Now we go back to the afternoon evening of the killing. Now, you say that you met up with Sicelo Dhlomo at dusk. Do you know what he had been doing beforehand. As far as I understand, no.

MR DUBE: Yes, that’s what I said.

MR RICHARD: Now, from the time that you met up with him until the time that he was shot, how much time elapsed?

MR DUBE: As I have already said it was dusk, just before it got dark, or it was dark. It could have been something between two hours, something around two hours. It was summertime and as we know that the day is longer than the evening or the night during summer.

MR RICHARD: In January we know that the sun sets and it gets dark round quarter past seven. Now, at what time was Sicelo Dhlomo shot?

MR DUBE: I don’t remember the time exactly, but around nine and ten at night. Because one other thing that I would like to mention here, I’m not sure about time that is certain, because many things occurred within the twinkling of an eye. I’m not sure, not certain.

MR RICHARD: So, you can’t give a precise date, precise time of the shooting, but you say it was about two hours later. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: I’ve said also that I’m not sure.

MR RICHARD: Was it a short time or a long time after meeting up with him?

MR DUBE: It was not a very long time, but I’m not quite sure as to when or what time it was.

MR RICHARD: We know that at about 12 o’clock, quarter past twelve, there was an anonymous telephone call to the police that there was a dead man under a tree, and it turned out that was the deceased. Do you know anything about that phone call?

MR DUBE: I don’t know anything relating to that.

MR RICHARD: Now, after the shooting, where did you go?

MR DUBE: I left these other cell members. I went to the base.

MR RICHARD: I beg pardon, did you go to the base or did they go to the base?

MR DUBE: What happened, we parted ways, I left because I was no residing there as I had mentioned earlier on.

MR RICHARD: So who went to the base?

MR DUBE: I don’t know, they will explain themselves, those two, where they went.

MR RICHARD: Where did you go to?

MR DUBE: I was staying in Diepkloof.

MR RICHARD: Where in Diepkloof.

MR DUBE: In Zone 4.

MR RICHARD: What time did you get there?

MR DUBE: It was at night, I don’t quite remember the time. I did not pay attention to the time.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you get there?

MR DUBE: I went in a taxi.

MR RICHARD: So, how long does it take to get there? Half an hour, an hour, quarter of an hour?

MR DUBE: It depends how fast the taxi will be because the taxi as you all know has many stops, it keeps stopping, so it’s a bit difficult for me to estimate as to how long it took to get me there.

MR RICHARD: Sir, I’m trying to establish some sort of time line, some sort of chronology of, we know that there was this report around midnight. We also have another report that at about 10 o’clock a shot was heard in that vicinity. Would you dispute the shooting happened around 10 o’clock?

MR DUBE: As I have said earlier on that I’m not sure of that, I am not in a position to dispute. I will not dispute that. I am not sure, as I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn’t you say it took place between nine and ten, isn’t that what you?

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone.

MR RICHARD: While he was with you, the deceased, did you do anything else besides talk to him?

MR DUBE: Shooting, for instance.

MR RICHARD: At about quarter past seven sometime there you met up, according to your version, with Sicelo Dhlomo. Sometime between nine and ten he was shot. That’s the evidence so far. Now, during that period, other than talk to him, did you do anything else? Did you go anywhere? Did you eat a meal?

MR DUBE: There’s nothing else we did except for what I’ve accounted for.

MR RICHARD: Because if I go through the post mortem report and I go to page 53 paragraph 17, there the examination reveals that the stomach contains undigested food. Now, if I put it to you that that is consistent only with the person being shot within at most an hour of eating, that’s what the scientific evidence would be, what would your comment be?

MR DUBE: What I would say is that as you said that besides talking to him what else did we do, I told you we shot him, so that I will not furnish any answer in with regards to your question.

MR RICHARD: So that means you stand by your answer that you spoke to him for two hours before shooting him, between seven and nine?

MR DUBE: What I said, I stand by it, and I maintain strongly what I’ve told you.

MR RICHARD: So even if it means it’s established that he was shot much earlier in the evening, you would stand by your evidence. Fine I’ll move to the next point. Now if we go to paragraph 13, there they say there are subdural haemorrhages of the upper lobes and a sub inter-cardial haemorrhage in the left ventricle. Now, after you shot him how long did you stand around the body?

MR DUBE: I did not stand next to the body for a long time. I think a minute, one minute was enough.

MR RICHARD: And did the deceased die instantly?

MR DUBE: I’m not sure about that. But the way he dropped down displayed the fact that he was dead.

MR RICHARD: Because the answers and findings in paragraph 13 and 14 of the post mortem indicate that he took a long time to die. Those are consistent with what they call stress and trauma.

MR DUBE: That I don’t know, as I said.

MR RICHARD: So did the deceased die apparently instantly, according to you? According to you it seemed as if he had dropped down dead instantly. Is that correct?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson the witness has answered this question and said he does not know when the deceased died. I think it’s not fair for my learned friend to repeat the question when it’s been answered.

MR RICHARD: How was the deceased positioned when he was shot? Was he sitting, standing, was he, you said earlier sitting?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now, where was Clive in relation to the deceased?

MR DUBE: I will say he was seated and there was a tree as I am demonstrating using this pen. He was sitting on this side and I think Clive was on his right-hand side, no left-hand side I mean.

MR RICHARD: And where in the head did Clive shoot the deceased?

MR DUBE: If my memory serves me right it was somewhere around left of the head.

CHAIRPERSON: He's indicated left side of the head towards the top of the head.

MR RICHARD: Now, after the shooting, did anyone make any effort to pick up the spent cartridge case?

MR DUBE: No I don’t remember.

MR RICHARD: Well an examination of the police docket indicates that no spent cartridge case was found. So do you remember anyone looking for the cartridge case?

MR DUBE: I don’t remember.

MR RICHARD: Now, the other point that I’d like to return to is, insofar as you are concerned, this killing, do you think it’s definable as a legitimate killing?

MR DUBE: I don’t quite understand the last part of your question.

MR RICHARD: In the late seventies, the ANC began to target specific police officers and perceived collaborators. Initially those killed were former ANC members who had turned state witnesses in political trials. The ANC justified these killings in its second submission because those killed were personnel actively assisting the SAP. Do you think, within that meaning, the killing Sicelo Dhlomo was a legitimate killing?

MR DUBE: Yes, at the time.

MR RICHARD: And then, if so, we go to the next thing. Some months later you proceeded to Lusaka and reported the matter, is that not correct? You said so this morning.

MR DUBE: Yes, the following months, although I don’t quite remember as to which month exactly did I go to Lusaka.

MR RICHARD: Was it before the Ellis Park bomb or after the Ellis Park bomb?

MR DUBE: After the incident of the Ellis Park bomb.

MR RICHARD: And on what date did the Ellis Park bomb take place?

MR DUBE: That happened in July the 2nd.

MR RICHARD: Now, when you say you reported the matter to one Aquino, what was Aquino’s real name?

MR DUBE: It’s Hein Grasskopf.

MR RICHARD: Hein Grasskopf?

MR DUBE: Hein Grasskopf.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now in-between you and him who else were you responsible to?

MR DUBE: You mean between myself and him?

MR RICHARD: The chain of command between Hein Grasskopf and yourself.

MR DUBE: It will be auxiliary staff in Botswana, let’s start there. That was based there in Botswana where you’ll find that I maintain or I am able to maintain the communication between myself and them and you find that sometimes it’s a bit difficult to get hold of them, especially after raids had been conducted, then I would then go straight to Lusaka to report there. So there were some of, there were members of the auxiliary staff.

MR RICHARD: Because immediately after the shooting there were numerous press items and articles on the death of the late Sicelo Dhlomo, and in fact there was an outcry. After the Ellis Park bomb which is over seven months later, you go to Lusaka, why did you take seven months to mention anything because in the meantime the world was misinformed?

MR DUBE: The situation that prevailed at the time was quite impossible for me to gain access of going out, because you will find Botswana there will be raids that are going on, so it was not quite as easy for me to go anywhere as I wished.

MR RICHARD: So that means what you’re saying is that there was no line of communication between you and the outside world.

MR KOOPEDI: The witness didn’t say so.

MR RICHARD: I’m putting the proposition to him.

I’m putting it to you that during that period from January until some time after the Ellis Park bomb when you were in Lusaka, there was no line of communication, no line of command between you and the rest of the world. Is that true or not? - seven months.

MR DUBE: Not that I could not communicate with them. I could communicate with them using the same means that we’ve employed in the past, but such report one will have to make time to sit down and elaborate and give explanation fully.

MR RICHARD: Tommy Masinga. Where was he in July in relation to you?

MR DUBE: In July Tommy Masinga was with me here.

MR RICHARD: Now, what was Tommy’s position in the hierarchy?

MR DUBE: He was the overall commander of the special ops.

MR RICHARD: And you and he were together in South Africa at the time. Did you tell him about the incident, before going to Lusaka?

MR DUBE: I did not.

MR RICHARD: Why not?

MR DUBE: There was something we were busy with, some mission that ended up to the one of Ellis Park.

MR RICHARD: But it would have taken you ten minutes to have sat down and told him about this. We’re not now talking of a report that had to be set out fully, you could have told him. Why didn’t you?

MR DUBE: Earlier on I already said that we followed a certain chain of command, so I couldn’t report to him at the time. That’s why I did not bother to tell him about this.

MR RICHARD: In the Ellis Park incident wasn’t Tommy Masinga also known as Dumakude, the commander of the operation?

MR DUBE: If I may ask, you had already asked me about Dumakude, why I didn’t report to him. Now I don’t understand why you’re going back to the Ellis Park and you want me to furnish answers in relation to that.

MR RICHARD: You said that you were responsible to people above you. As I understand your evidence, Tommy Masinga, which is Dumakude, was your commanding official above you in Johannesburg. It’s under his direction and command that the Ellis Park bomb incident was committed. So isn’t he the person to whom you should have reported the matter?

MR DUBE: Military-wise there’s something called chain of command. And that’s exactly what I employed at the time. This is why I did not report to him.

MR RICHARD: Instead you waited for seven months until, as you say here, at paragraph 6 page 11

"...I then reported the matter to the then immediate commander of special operations, i.e. Tommy Aquino."

You’re contradicting yourself unmercifully.

MR DUBE: I did explain this morning with regards to this matter, that I made mention of this in such a way that Aquino told me that he will tell the commander who will give the report to him as Dube was the overall commander. I did explain to this effect in the morning.

MR RICHARD: Right, the next thing is, you’ve said that according to the structures around you, that’s whether it be Aquino or Tommy or yourself, that this was a legitimate killing. Correct? Now would you please explain to us then if it was a legitimate incident, why it was not on the ANC’s lists of incidents for which they’ve taken responsibility as submitted to the TRC?

MR DUBE: I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard. Mr Dube, let’s put it this way. Are you aware that the ANC made a submission to the TRC in which amongst the other things they gave a list of incidents which are known to them, incidents or operations which were carried out in pursuit of the ANC policy. Do you know, are you aware of that?

MR DUBE: Yes I am aware.

ADV SANDI: Have you seen the list counsel is talking about?

MR DUBE: Not the whole list, because there were submissions were divided into parts, like part one, part two, but I did not get to see the entire document.

ADV SANDI: Did you at any stage become interested whether this particular incident which was carried out by you, whether it did appear in that list?

MR DUBE: Yes, I was interested. But I told myself that maybe it will come to the surface, or it will be brought to the attention.

MR RICHARD: Now, if you take responsibility for the Witbank incident, can you give us a reason as to why in the same list it’s put in as one that might or might not be the responsibility of the ANC?

MR DUBE: Please repeat, what about Witbank?

MR RICHARD: The Witbank incident is listed in the schedule as an event for which the ANC is uncertain as to whether it should or shouldn’t or is or isn’t responsible. My question then to you is, if you take responsibility for the incident, as you do, why is there that qualification to the Witbank incident?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the last part of your question.

MR RICHARD: What is the translation of what the ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: I’d ask the counsel to repeat the very last part of his question.

MR RICHARD: No, my question is why is the schedule conditional about the status of the Witbank incident? If Mr Dube takes responsibility for it and is a member of the ANC, why doesn’t the ANC come out straight and say it’s one of those for which we take responsibility?

MR DUBE: I do ...(indistinct) I don’t know.

MR RICHARD: Well, we make much mention of the word special operations. Would you please tell me what the special operations division of the MK operation was. What is special operations?

MR DUBE: Special ops is the unit that was formed so to have certain targets, military installations of the enemy, so that operations such as Sasol could be executed. And again people were elected or appointed to this kind of unit, special ops, who would have been experience people with high expertise. I don’t know if you are with me or you get me.

MR RICHARD: Well, what I understand is how this special ops division differed from other MKU’s. In other words, they were specialised highly trained units. Is that correct?

MR DUBE: It was different in terms of targets. Its targets will not be the same as the other wings target, as I’ve already made an example to the effect of Sasol target.

MR RICHARD: What’s special about Sasol?

MR DUBE: No I was only giving you an example.

MR RICHARD: What I’m trying to understand is, is your answer that special operations had special types of targets against which acts of, attacks should be committed, such as strategic plants, engineering, mining, police, military?

MR DUBE: I will go back and state that there was a need even with regards to the case we are talking about and the special ops which I was a member of.

MR RICHARD: So when we deal with special ops did you have a mandate to select your own targets?

MR DUBE: I had the mandate.

MR RICHARD: How did you select ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: But I only got the mandate after I acquired experience about the operations ...(indistinct) outside the country, as well as to mention that the mandate I had, part of the mandate I had, was enabling me to train and recruit and train people, in that order.

MR RICHARD: So, who decided, to take an example, that the Witbank bomb should happen or not happen?

MR DUBE: I would request not to answer that question because I already submitted the application with regards to the Witbank bomb blast and I’m not here for it.

MR RICHARD: Did you make the decision?

MR KOOPEDI: The witness has ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: When it comes to your own mandate, where and when were you told what your mandate was, as to what to do? Was it while you were in South Africa, or while you were in Lusaka?

MR DUBE: What I said was we had various ways of communicating with the commanders, my commanders that is, we would do DLB’s for instance and I will be able to go and gather my message from that DLB.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever taught the MK military code?

MR DUBE: I did not hear the question.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever taught what the MK military code is and what it says? I have a copy of it here, would you like to see it? ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It seems as if we're going to be a long time ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning. That suit you?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson I have a request and I’m just not sure whether I should do it in chambers. I’d like to be released a little early tomorrow, so one would have wanted to say perhaps if we start earlier, go through lunch, there’s an urgent pressing matter I have to attend to.

CHAIRPERSON: What time do you ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Half past two.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

NO SOUND

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS