Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: ... of those present, that to meet the convenience of the lawyers engaged in this hearing we have agreed that we will adjourn not later than half past two this afternoon, but in order to ensure that the proceedings go ahead as smoothly and as rapidly as possible this means that we will take the short adjournment at half past eleven and we will not adjourn again till half past two. There will be no lunch adjournment today, we will adjourn for the day at half past two. So if you want to go and get food you must do so during the short adjournment which will be taken at half past eleven. Right, shall we continue.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Before we conclude your cross-examination I have a number of points to canvass, and I revert back to your training. During the course of your training in Angola and wherever else, were you taught how to deal with infiltration into your cell and how to deal with it?

MR DUBE: Yes, I was trained.

MR RICHARD: What were you told to do, how were you told to handle it?

MR DUBE: The first point is that you should be certain ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Sorry, could the interpreter repeat the question, repeat the answer?

INTERPRETER: He said the first point was that you should be certain, and he hasn't carried it further than that.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dube, when you say "be certain", be certain of what?

MR DUBE: I was still explaining. It depends on how that infiltration occurs, but you should have certainty. For example, if a cell has been infiltrated you should be able to gather information with regards to that infiltration. It also depends on the circumstances. There is no standing rule with regards to the question of infiltration.

MR RICHARD: From your answer I gather that the first concern is to discover how serious the infiltration is, what information might have been dropped by the infiltrator and so on.

MR DUBE: I do not quite understand the question.

MR RICHARD: I'm putting a simple scenario. You are the commander of a cell or a group of cells, as in your case, you have reason to believe that you've been infiltrated, you find the infiltrator, isn't your next step to find out what the damage is, what information has been leaked, what's been told to the enemy?

MR DUBE: As I explained before, it depends on each and every situation and also the amount of sources from which one can gather information.

CHAIRPERSON: What I gathered from what you were saying was that the first thing you had to do was ascertain with certainty whether you had identified an infiltrator.

MR DUBE: Yes, I did say that.

MR RICHARD: Now in this particular case, we've heard your evidence that you felt in your own mind that you were certain that you had an infiltrator. Now my next question is, what other steps could you have taken to confirm your suspicion?

MR DUBE: At that time there were none.

MR RICHARD: Couldn't it have been that you could have kept him away from everyone, debriefed him, ascertained what he had told the police, if he were an informer?

MR DUBE: As I explained before, it would not have been easy.

MR RICHARD: So you took the option that you saw as the easiest, is that your evidence?

MR DUBE: I am not saying that was an easy option, but it was the only option.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you question him?

MR DUBE: As I mentioned before that I asked him if he was working for the police and he said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And did you ask him what he had told the police?

MR DUBE: I did not ask him that.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely it was of vital importance to know whether he had identified you to the police, whether he had told the police your proper name or your undercover name, whether he had told police the addresses that you visited?

MR DUBE: Yes, it was important, but the problem I had at the time was that I did not have sufficient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? You now had this man, he had admitted he was an informer, he'd admitted he'd worked for the police, you had the rest of the cell to back you up, why did you not have sufficient time? - you had the whole night.

MR DUBE: I say this because the uppermost thing on my mind was our own security.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, and that is why you had to question him to find out how your own security was threatened.

MR DUBE: I repeat that the most important thing on my mind was our security and for those people who had been involved in accommodating us. And the situation that prevailed then was different from what prevails today, because at that time very few people managed to assist us and help us.

CHAIRPERSON: I still don't understand why you did not question this man. You had taken him away from the house where you'd discovered the radio, so you said, you were on the outskirts of town and you could now have found out whether he had disclosed the identity of the people who sheltered to you, whether the addresses were known to the police, whether you must change and not go back there. Surely all this was vital to your security?

MR DUBE: I do not dispute that it was important, but as I said before, it did not occur to me at the time because at that time I was concerned mostly about our security.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from what you have said in evidence, that you were concerned only with killing the deceased. Now tell me, you had searched him, you had taken away a radio from him, you had destroyed it in his presence, he had admitted to you he was working for the police, is everything I've said so far correct?

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he then peacefully walk down the road with you when you and you alone took him away?

MR DUBE: Yes, he walked with me peacefully.

CHAIRPERSON: And made no attempt to escape although he must have known by then that his life was at risk?

MR DUBE: I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a healthy young man?

MR DUBE: As far as I know, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you say he walked down the street with you knowing all this till you told him to sit under a tree, he sat there perfectly peacefully till one of his friends walked up and shot him through the head.

MR DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: No threats from you, no attempts from him to safeguard himself.

MR DUBE: No, he did not try to escape.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I find that amazing, that this young man would have sat there after, according to you, he had made all these admissions, knowing the rest of the group were coming and just sat. It seems - on the version you have given, it points rather more to a man being taken completely by surprise as to what happened. Do you say that is not the position, that he knew he had been found out, he knew you had summoned the rest of the group?

MR DUBE: It is difficult for me to explain or to be able to explain why he behaved in that manner.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that. Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Right, the next point is, are you aware of any other situation or case within the MK where a commander of a unit ordered the summary execution of a sole member? What did other people do in the same situation as you say you were in?

MR DUBE: I do not know anything of the sort, I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of any other incident where an alleged informer was executed, yours is the only incident that you're aware of, is that your answer?

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

MR RICHARD: Now in relation to proportionality as you saw it at the time, was what you call elimination the only option open to you, weren't there other options?

MR DUBE: As I explained before, there was no other option available.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? On your version he had had three months to tell the police all that he knew about you, is that not so?

MR DUBE: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: On your version he had had approximately three moths to tell the police all that he knew about you. He hadn't seen you for three months, he'd disappeared.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On the afternoon in question he came upon you sitting perfectly peacefully at Clive's home, a place that he knew well.

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: He had discovered nothing new on that afternoon.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had nothing new to tell the police, nothing new he could have told them.

MR DUBE: I do not know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why did you suddenly have to execute him in a matter of hours, without even questioning him, what was the sudden new danger?

MR DUBE: Firstly, the situation that prevailed at that time was that of war in the country. Secondly, as a commander I had to provide security for my comrades and for myself. Thirdly, logistics was also a very important matter and one was not able to take other options. That is why I say at the time the only option available to me was that of eliminating him.

CHAIRPERSON: At a time when you knew he had had a radio on him, presumably connected to the police?

MR DUBE: Please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew at the time he had a transmitter on his person, presumably connected up to the police?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They presumably were fully aware of the fact then that he had come and was talking to you?

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were then prepared to commit a murder knowing that you would be the prime suspect, and you say this was for your security.

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RICHARD: To continue with that point, you have stated you thought you were in imminent danger of being caught by the police because of the transmitter, correct?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now in the nature of things, because you say you're familiar with these things, you would have known that if it were a transmitter there would have been a back-up team listening to the transactions where the deceased was and they would have known where he went.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is why I destroyed it quickly.

MR RICHARD: But then even at the time you destroyed it, you would have been aware that if it was all properly set up and was a transmitter you would have been in immediate and imminent danger being where you were because the back-up team would have known where their so-called informer was going.

MR DUBE: I cannot say with certainty with regards to that, but that is one of the reasons why we left that place quickly.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what you said in your statement was

"What bothered me mostly was that who was listening to my conversation with him."

You thought they were listening to your conversation with him, they would have heard you demanding that he give you the transmitter.

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now how long did it take you to leave the house where you say you were, after finding the transmitter as you call it, as you allege it is? For how long were you at that house after finding it?

MR DUBE: I do not remember quite well, as I mentioned yesterday with regards to time.

MR RICHARD: Did you leave quickly or did it take some time?

MR DUBE: We left quickly, we did not waste time.

MR RICHARD: Now how far away did you go?

MR DUBE: The place was not too far. If I'm not mistaken it could have been about 800 metres away.

MR RICHARD: So you went approximately half a kilometre away from where the radio was last known to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 800, it's not quite half a kilometre. Sorry, before you go with that, 800 metres away you would hear a gunshot, wouldn't you?

MR DUBE: I'm responding the question that when we left Clive's house where exactly did we go. The 800 metre distance that I'm referring to is the distance between the school that we went to from Clive's home.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's the school now you say was 800 metres away?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That would have been within hearing of the gunshot, the school would have?

MR DUBE: When I gave evidence yesterday I explained that when we left Clive's home we, I took him to a school and then Clive went away to fetch Sipho and Precious and when they arrived that is when we left for that spot. We did not shoot him at the school.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

DR TSOTSI: When Sicelo disappeared did it occur to you that he had defected to the police?

MR DUBE: I explained before that I was confused, it did occur to me but I did not draw conclusions at that time.

DR TSOTSI: If he defected to the police, did you know or did you imagine what things he would have told the police about you?

MR DUBE: Yes, I did think about it.

DR TSOTSI: When he subsequently admitted to you that he was an informer, what conclusions did you draw from that?

MR DUBE: Please repeat the question.

DR TSOTSI: I'm saying, when he confessed to you that he was in fact a police informer, what conclusions did you draw from that statement of his, about yourself and about the cell, about everybody, that's what I mean?

MR DUBE: What I thought is that he had given information about the cell.

CHAIRPERSON: None of the houses had been searched, had

they, belonging to members of the cell?

MR DUBE: Prior or after we had shot Sicelo?

CHAIRPERSON: After he'd disappeared. They all continued living at home quite peacefully, didn't they?

MR DUBE: No, I explained before that I did take precautionary measures and I organised accommodation for cell members and I told them that one should always be alert about what was happening.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but none of their homes were searched, were they? And none of them were questioned? You were sitting at Clive's home on the afternoon in question, quite peacefully you told us. Mr Dube, isn't it quite clear that no steps had been taken against the members of the cell in those three months?

MR DUBE: It is not true that I did not do anything about the situation, I took precautionary measures.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dube, don't you want to answer the question? The question I put to you is, is it not quite clear that no steps were taken against the members of the cell during those three months? Their houses were not searched and they were not questioned.

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

So on your version you met up with the deceased at about 7 p.m. that evening and the shooting happened between 9 and 10 p.m., is that correct?

MR DUBE: What I said is that I am not certain of the time, those were just my estimations.

MR RICHARD: Now how far from the school is the place of execution?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: It's 800 metres from Clive's house to the school, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that the place where he was shot was 800 metres from the school, didn't you?

MR DUBE: No, I did not say so. What I said was, the distance from Clive's house to the school is 800 metres, and that is only my estimation.

CHAIRPERSON: And how far is it from the school to the place where you shot him?

MR DUBE: It could be a kilometre, but I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: I put it to you that that is not what you said earlier.

MR DUBE: I said before that the distance between Clive's home and the school could be 800 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

Now what we now know is that on your estimations as you say, despite finding the transmitter you were prepared to spend approximately two hours in the company of the deceased in and around Emdeni, is that correct?

MR DUBE: No, I was not prepared to spend time with him.

MR RICHARD: The deceased met up with you, on your version, at sunset, which is approximately 7 o'clock. Your evidence is that the shooting happened some two hours later, is that not time?

MR DUBE: I was estimating.

MR RICHARD: Unfortunately at the moment yours is the only estimation that we have to go on, are you changing your evidence about how long you spent with the deceased?

MR DUBE: No, I'm not changing anything, I did say that it could have been about two hours but I was not certain.

MR RICHARD: So whether it's one hour or two hours, do you not agree that the back-up team, if this thing was indeed a transmitter, would have had more than adequate time to arrive in Emdeni to seek out you and your cell members?

MR DUBE: We did not waste a lot of time from the time that Sicelo arrived at Clive's home until the time that we left that house for the school. It was a short time.

MR RICHARD: Well, I put it to you if you were seriously concerned about your safety and those of your cell members you didn't behave in a manner consistent with that concern. Why didn't you go and carry out the execution immediately within half an hour, quarter of an hour?

MR DUBE: Firstly, we were at Clive's home and it was not possible to take a decision that he be killed there. I took the decision that he will be eliminated, but not at Clive's home.

MR RICHARD: In your evidence-in-chief, if I understand you correctly, you indicated that Mr Zungu and Mr Tshabalala were a little taken aback at your decision, they were surprised.

MR DUBE: That is because I had not explained the situation to them before. That is why they were surprised.

MR RICHARD: When you explained the situation to them, isn't it correct as I understand you, that you said: "I have decided that the late Sicelo Dhlomo be shot and that is my decision as the commander"?

MR DUBE: When I explained it to them it was to the effect that after Sicelo's disappearance I discovered the transmitter on him when he resurfaced and these weapons that I had given to him were missing. My explanation to them was very brief.

MR RICHARD: So you stand by what you said yesterday, it wasn't a joint decision, it was your decision to execute the late Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you give him these weapons?

MR DUBE: Before he was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: How long ...(indistinct)

MR DUBE: If I'm not mistaken it was between August and September 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is months before.

MR DUBE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard.

Mr Dube, what was Sicelo supposed to do with these weapons? To keep them until when?

MR DUBE: I asked him to keep them for me. I used to do this from time to time. For instance if I was going somewhere and there was a possibility of a roadblock and I would leave them and claim them on my return.

ADV SANDI: I hear that you say you used to do that before, had you given him any weapons before this day which you say was either in August or September?

MR DUBE: As I've just said, it was not the first time that I had given him weapons.

ADV SANDI: By the way can I just ask, was Sicelo ever involved in any operation as a member of your cell, did he ever get involved in anything?

MR DUBE: No.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Richard.

CHAIRPERSON: You say the weapons had disappeared, disappeared from where?

MR DUBE: They were with Sicelo.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't know where he had put them, how can you say they had disappeared?

MR DUBE: I had told him to keep those weapons with him at all times.

CHAIRPERSON: So what are you telling us? You've told us that you gave him weapons in August to look after for you, now you're saying you told him to keep them at all times, was he to keep them when he went to work, was he to keep them where he might be searched by the police?

MR DUBE: I should explain something. As I explained before, these were my weapons which I would keep with someone from whom I could get them when I return. That is why I had given those weapons to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to safeguard for you. It was in August or September.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know where they were.

MR DUBE: On the day that we shot him he told me that they had been confiscated.

CHAIRPERSON: So that now, this is something else he told you? On the day you shot him he told you that the weapons had been confiscated?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know when you gave him the weapons to look after for you that he had a previous conviction and a five year suspended sentence for the unlawful possession of firearms?

MR DUBE: I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask, did you make any enquiries about your cell members, about their previous convictions?

MR DUBE: As I explained yesterday the cell had its own commander who was Clive, therefore he was the person mostly responsible for cell members.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a member of the cell in fact?

INTERPRETER: Who is the speaker referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: The deceased.

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: He never took part in any cell activities? - you've just told us that.

MR DUBE: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't tell the other members of the cell when he went anywhere, as he was bound to do if he was a member? You've told us that yesterday, do you remember?

MR DUBE: Initially he used to do it, but as time went on he did not do this anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Well there wasn't very much time was there, you've said he was only there for a few months.

MR DUBE: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You have said he was only a member for a few months, haven't you? - before he disappeared.

MR DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: It was about June/July that he'd joined the cell, wasn't it?

MR DUBE: Yes, that was my estimation.

CHAIRPERSON: And knowing nothing about his background in August you were asking him to look after your weapons for you?

MR DUBE: As I mentioned before a person was recommended when they were recruited. I trust the commander of the cell, that he would bring only those people whom we could use safely. And moreover I was from exile, I was from outside the country, so I did not have enough information on everyone who knew the cell but I relied on the commander.

MR RICHARD: But you could ask the commander, couldn't you, what is this person, what does he do, tell me about him? - before you get involved.

MR DUBE: What I had told the commander was that I would not be the one to decide who he works with, but he had the initiative to come to me and inform on who he was prepared to work with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I'm asking you now about the person you were working with, the person you were entrusting your firearms to, for him to keep them for you.

MR DUBE: Yes, I understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: You make no enquiries it would seem.

MR DUBE: As I explained Sicelo was a person who had been recommended and seconded to join the cell and therefore they don't have problems with him joining and being a cell member.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now Mr Dube, if I understand the impression that you've created correctly, you didn't know the deceased, you didn't know what his activities on a day to day basis were, you simply accepted whatever Clive Zungu said, the commander said, is that correct?

MR DUBE: That is true.

MR RICHARD: And when the deceased supposedly disappeared, which as you know is in dispute, you did nothing at all personally to locate him and you took no initiatives of your own?

MR DUBE: I explained before that I issued an order to the cell members that we should look for Sicelo and try to locate him, which was not easy.

MR RICHARD: Now what I'm asking you is, is that all that you did, gave an order, beyond that you took no part in it and showed no interest in it?

MR DUBE: Personally it was no easy for me to look for him because I did not know where to look.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I interrupt you here for a minute?

Going back to what you've just said, did you say, do I understand you correctly, did you say you left it to Clive to question him to find out about his background, Clive was the commander of the cell and it had nothing to do with you? Clive was the person who knew him.

MR DUBE: Yes, that is what I mean.

CHAIRPERSON: Well when the deceased arrived at Clive's house that afternoon, why didn't you tell Clive to find out where he'd been? - Clive was the one who questioned him and knew him.

MR DUBE: The problem is that it had been a long time since he disappeared, that is why I was the one who questioned him.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand that answer, why could Clive not have questioned him? Clive would have known the houses he mentioned, would have known the people he mentioned, you wouldn't know them, would you, if he'd said he'd been staying somewhere? You've just been telling us that you didn't know the region.

MR DUBE: What I am saying is, because Sicelo had disappeared for a long time and when he arrived I was present, I found it important that I question him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you'd never found it important before?

MR DUBE: When I issued an order that a cell should be formed and when I asked Clive on who could he identify as people to form the cell, he mentioned several names including that of Sicelo. When he gave me these names I would not dispute or disagree with him on the people that he had identified because he is the one who knew the area of Emdeni and the people living there.

MR RICHARD: May I continue?

Mr Dube, do you know one of the commanders at the time in Soweto, one Vuyisile also known as comrade B?

MR DUBE: No, I do not.

MR RICHARD: Well ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR RICHARD: What he has mentioned in the Motsonyane Report which records details of investigation into human rights violations in certain camps during the '80's, we are aware of one case at least during 1987/early '88 when an Umkhonto weSizwe cadre was recalled to Lusaka because he was suspected of some sort of involvement in the death of two commanders, one of whom was known as Vuyisile and he was a prominent commander in the Soweto area at the time. Have you never heard of that incident?

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

MR RICHARD: Well for the sake of the record, it was an instance where the suspects were taken to Lusaka for further investigation rather than summarily executed, even though a commander had been killed. You know nothing so I cannot take it further.

Did you tell the deceased, Sicelo Dhlomo, that you were about to kill him?

MR DUBE: No, I did not.

MR RICHARD: When did you tell Clive Zungu that he should execute the deceased? - sorry, Clive Makhubu.

MR DUBE: I don't quite remember as to whether I told him at home, at his house that is, or on our way going out. I don't remember quite well. I will ask for him to remind me.

MR RICHARD: So you're saying it could have been at the stage that you were at Clive's house, that you told him what to do next, that was before you had met up with Sipho and Precious?

MR DUBE: That definitely happened before we met with Sipho and Precious. As to whether that happened at his house or outside, I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: But it was certainly before the second applicant, that's Sipho Tshabalala and the fourth applicant, Precious Wiseman Zungu had joined up with the group?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now why was it necessary for the two of them to be present at the scene of the execution in that situation, in those circumstances?

MR DUBE: They were the members of the cell and we had a problem, all of us, that he had disappeared for months from us. Then I deemed it fit for me to report this to them as well.

MR RICHARD: You had already made the decision that he should be executed.

MR DUBE: Yes, I'd already taken that decision.

MR RICHARD: Very well. At what stage did the deceased first become aware that he was about to be shot?

MR DUBE: I don't think if there was a right time where he discovered he'll be shot, or realised he'll be shot.

MR RICHARD: So the execution came as a complete surprise to him, that his comrade, Clive shot him, he wasn't warned, he wasn't told why he was about to be executed?

MR DUBE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I just interpose for a moment, Mr Richard?

Mr Dube, did it appear to you, before Sicelo was shot and killed, did he appear to you as someone who was expecting that something was going to happen to him?

MR DUBE: That I don't know, I have no answer to that question.

ADV SANDI: But from what you have said from yesterday and today, it seems that he was taken completely by surprise, he was not expecting anything of this kind to happen to him.

MR DUBE: As I have already said that as to whether he suspected this, I can't answer to that.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Dube, you say that Sicelo suddenly came into Clive's house where you were, did you find out from Clive whether he had been there previously?

MR DUBE: No, I had not established that.

DR TSOTSI: Did you consider that Clive might have important information as to where Sicelo had been all along?

MR DUBE: You mean if that occurred in my mind?

DR TSOTSI: Yes.

MR DUBE: The thing here is, I found Clive sitting in his house, I joined him and we started talking and chatting about other things, but that had not occurred in my mind that I should ask him but I would have asked him as time went on.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the question is that the two of you were sitting there and Sicelo quite casually appeared, he came as a visitor, and you decided after you had spoken to him, that you should kill him. Did you before that ask Clive if he had been to his house before?

MR DUBE: No, I did not find out anything from Clive.

DR TSOTSI: Just one other question.

You say you destroyed this transmitter, didn't it occur to you that it was important that you should be able to show it to the other members of the cell in order to convince them of the necessity to kill Sicelo?

MR DUBE: As I said earlier on, I only showed that broken transmitter to Clive. That happened spontaneously so that I could be in a position to break in in a communication if there was any progressing.

CHAIRPERSON: But after you had removed the batteries you've told us already you then knew that the thing couldn't transmit further, that it worked from batteries. You had operated similar machines in your training, hadn't you?

MR DUBE: That I said.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't have to destroy it to stop it working, you'd taken the batteries out.

MR DUBE: The problem here is that times then are different from times today, the situation that prevailed then is a different one, and another thing you should take into consideration is the fact that we react different from different situations as individuals. That's how I reacted to the situation that I was facing at that particular time.

CHAIRPERSON: You were a trained commander for Special Operations.

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it not enter your head that it might be quite important to Umkhonto and the ANC to get hold of a copy of the Security Police transmitters so they could eavesdrop on them, so that they could see what they were using?

MR DUBE: That's important for me to have done but unfortunately it did not happen that way.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, we keep on interposing.

When you reported this operation to Aquino in Lusaka, what was his reaction?

MR DUBE: He wanted me to sit down with him and explain in detail to him, and I did that.

ADV SANDI: So you gave him all the details, and I would assume that you mentioned the name of the deceased, you did not just say it was some boy from Soweto that you killed, you said it was Sicelo Dhlomo? Did you go as far as that?

MR DUBE: That is true, I did make mention of his name.

ADV SANDI: Yesterday you said you were expecting Aquino to convey the report to Tommy whom you said was Dumakude, is that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Did Dumakude at any stage, subsequent to your giving the report to Aquino, did he ever confirm having received such a report from Aquino?

MR DUBE: As I have already explained I was not reporting directly to Dumakude, that much I don't know.

ADV SANDI: Did you not see Dumakude after you had given the report to Aquino?

MR DUBE: I did see him but we did not discuss this matter or talk about this.

ADV SANDI: He never mentioned anything to you about having received such a report from Aquino?

MR DUBE: Not at all, that did not come up.

ADV SANDI: Did anything prevent you from mentioning the killing of Sicelo to Dumakude?

MR DUBE: First of all in MK we had this philosophy of need-to-know, that maybe he was not told. If he did not initiate that, I did not see it important for me to tell him.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you think it important to tell your operational commander that one of your cells had been infiltrated by a Security Police informer?

MR DUBE: That was important.

CHAIRPERSON: So why didn't you tell that that had happened and you had to execute the informer?

MR DUBE: What I told myself was that if he got the report, that was enough. Him as a commander should have approached me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you met him and saw him before you had reported, when he would have known nothing about it. That was when the Ellis Park bombing took place. Do you not agree that it was important that he should know there had been infiltration of one of the cells and that it might be at risk?

MR DUBE: That I am not disagreeing with you on, it was quite important, but we had this chain of command that we adhered to. As a soldier who was disciplined and displaying discipline as well, if Duma had asked me I know I would have told him, but he did not bother to ask. This is why I did not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But he would not have known because you had made no report then. Don't keep on saying he didn't bother to ask, you had not reported to your senior at that stage and you have agreed it was quite important that he should know. Why didn't you tell him?

MR DUBE: I wouldn't have said it to him directly because I had other people that I was accountable to, to report to, then the flow of information would have got to him from the people I reported directly to.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would leave him walking around here, perhaps getting trapped by the Security Police because he didn't know that there had been this infiltration, because you were sticking to the chain of command, is that what you would have us believe, Mr Dube?

MR DUBE: No, I'd already facilitated the security measures, so there was no threat prevailing then. It was a different ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dube, the threat was what he may have told them over the previous three months. You didn't know, you didn't take any steps to find out what he had told the Security Police, you've told us that today. You here have a senior officer there at a time when you have told us that your chain of command through Botswana, I think it was, was not operating, that you had to go to Lusaka a month later to report to Aquino. Do you remember you've told us all that?

MR DUBE: Yes, I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: So why didn't you, when you had a senior officer there, you were in personal contact with him, why didn't you tell him of this problem that had arisen and what you had done to overcome it?

MR DUBE: Firstly that had not posed any problem or there was no problem existing then because after the shooting of Sicelo I ensured that things are in place insofar as security is concerned. Secondly, Duma could never meet with me at the scene of Emdeni, he met with me in a different place altogether because he was there for a different mission altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct then in assuming from what you have just told us, that after the shooting of this alleged informer there was no Security Police response, that you had everything under control?

MR DUBE: I don't remember encountering problems from the police because I evacuated and took the necessary precautions to ensure their safety, as I have already explained.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the other three all evacuate?

MR DUBE: No, they did not because that would have raised some suspicions.

CHAIRPERSON: But the Security Police were listening on the transmitter, how do you say it would have raised some suspicion? They would have heard you talking to the man just before he was murdered, wouldn't they? - on your version. You've told us you were frightened at who was listening to the conversation. Do you remember that?

MR DUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you take the man a couple of kilometres away, shoot him and leave his body lying in the open. Was this your covering up?

MR DUBE: Firstly, the conversation I had with Sicelo was so brief, such that I even discovered that transmitter from him and destroyed it subsequently.

MR RICHARD: Very well. Thank you, Chair.

Now as I understand it if I'm correct, after the execution, Clive, Sipho and Precious all went their own ways and went home, isn't that correct?

MR DUBE: Yes, we parted after a few minutes.

MR RICHARD: And they continued to live at home without any change of activity or change of residence from then on, they didn't immediately change residence or go somewhere else or change towns.

MR DUBE: One thing I raised first with them was the fact that they should be very careful and not stay full-time at their various or respective houses. This is why I also initiated to arrange some place for them. So that lay entirely on the shoulders of the commander, the cell commander that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they go to other places or did they stay at home? - was the question as I understood it.

MR DUBE: After this incident I don't remember as to what happened or transpired because I had already left.

MR RICHARD: Where did you leave to, where did you go?

MR DUBE: I did explain yesterday that I had various places where I stayed. I had many cells in Soweto, different cells in Soweto.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever arrested by the South African Police between the date of the murder and 1994, you personally?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: When was that?

MR DUBE: In 1990.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever questioned about the late Sicelo Dhlomo's death?

MR DUBE: I was only arrested because I had a firearm in my possession. I was never asked about any other thing politically.

MR RICHARD: Now when you were finally in Lusaka, did you make a written report, in writing?

MR DUBE: You mean what now?

MR RICHARD: Sometime after July you say you went to Lusaka and there you met Grasskopf and a report, did you make any report in writing?

MR DUBE: With regards to Sicelo's incident or what?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR DUBE: No, I did not write any report, I only gave him a verbal report.

MR RICHARD: Was that normal procedure?

MR DUBE: The problem here is we did not have sufficient time because I had to come back here, I had already been in Lusaka for quite some time. I had no time to write any report because I was hurry to come back.

MR RICHARD: Now if you go to pages 58 through to 66 of the bundle, there is a collection of news clippings from both local and overseas newspapers, all within the week after the murder, are you aware of that?

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

MR RICHARD: Are you aware of the various news clippings in the bundle, pages 58 to 66, all apparently, except for the first one ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: I don't have the bundle with me. Page?

MR RICHARD: 58, 59. Now those are all a collection of news clippings from the week after the murder, the last date is the 28th of January, The Washington Post. Did you ever read any of those press clippings at the time?

MR DUBE: I don't remember. Maybe if I may go through them, read through them, that might remind me.

MR RICHARD: Did - as you said yesterday, you become aware that there were news reports of the later Sicelo Dhlomo's death, after the murder?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now isn't it obvious that taking into account that it was a widely publicised event which precipitated a funeral of about 3 000 people, that your commanders and chain of authority would become very aware that the late Sicelo Dhlomo had been murdered? Wasn't it obvious to you that the people in Lusaka, Botswana and internally would be aware of the death of the late Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR DUBE: That I knew.

MR RICHARD: And you were aware that in these news clippings the implication is that the police killed the deceased.

MR DUBE: That I knew as well.

MR RICHARD: And you're also aware that Oliver Tambo made a public statement criticising the police over this matter.

MR DUBE: That I knew as well.

MR RICHARD: And notwithstanding all that, you chose to keep quiet until July or later before you then went to Lusaka to confide in one person about what the truth is, is that correct?

MR DUBE: I had reasons that made me to be quiet. As I said leaving the country and coming back was not just as easy to do and I also had other commitments that I had to do and attend to.

MR RICHARD: Yesterday by ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... other means of telling them, you didn't have to leave the country, did you?

MR DUBE: I did report or say yesterday that I had this communication breakdown, that is between myself and the auxiliary staff in Botswana, that brought difficulties and Botswana was once place that I could get people. I had no other option than going to Botswana.

MR RICHARD: Now if I understood you correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand, Mr Dumakude was your commander in South Africa?

MR DUBE: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And you were in contact as you've said, both then and certainly in July?

MR DUBE: No. I agree with some part of what you said and I disagree with the part where you mentioned that I was in contact with him, I don't think that's what I said. In fact I did not say that until he came.

MR RICHARD: Well then when did you start contact with your commander after the murder?

MR DUBE: As I said that he came and met with me on another mission, the one I told you about yesterday.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR RICHARD: When was that?

MR DUBE: If my memory serves me right I'm not too sure as to the time here, but it could have been around - you see here, I'm not certain about what I'm, I think the beginning of June.

MR RICHARD: Now what other command structures were you in contact with within the country at the time?

MR DUBE: As I said my reports ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Your reports of what?

MR DUBE: My commander would command me from outside the country, not within.

MR RICHARD: So that means you were left alone without any means of communication, without any chain of command, without any instructions for many, many months on end, and without any contact with any other operatives around you in South Africa?

MR DUBE: No, that's not the case.

MR RICHARD: Well, I then go back to the question, who else were you in communication with in South Africa in January 1988?

MR DUBE: Here in South Africa in January 1988, the one in command?

MR RICHARD: Who else were you in communication with of either your own level or above you?

MR DUBE: No-one. Here in South Africa there was none.

MR RICHARD: Your last two questions are mutually exclusive, you say yes, you were in contact with other people and no you weren't besides January, February, March.

MR DUBE: What you've asked me was who else was I in contact with within the country, and I explained to you that I had commanders that were outside the country and I would take my commands from them except the time when Dumakude arrived here as I said.

MR RICHARD: I don't understand, but I'll leave the point, but I would like to know who else during the period January, February, March, April 1988 you were in communication with in South Africa, whether they were your commanders or not.

MR DUBE: I said that there was none, I was not in communication with anyone here in South Africa at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you just sitting silently for four months?

MR DUBE: If I may go back, yesterday I did explain that I had other duties that I was conducting or doing, I also had other units and my mind was preoccupied with training of these units. If it was not necessary for me to communicate with them, I would not communicate with them, I would continue with the work I was involved in or engaged in.

MR RICHARD: Did you have no sense of urgency at all to let your party, your organisation to know the true facts as soon as possible, but particularly in the light of the fact that an entirely incorrect perception was being propagated and promoted?

MR DUBE: It was necessary, but unfortunately the situation was not conducive for me,

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Next point. If I were to tell ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But what worries me a little on this is I rely only on what I have seen in these press cuttings which you have been referred to, and from those it would appear that the deceased, apart from having been a member of this cell, was an extremely high-profile young man who had received a great deal of publicity on television, radio elsewhere in the world, that he was an important figure for the freedom struggle, would you agree with that?

MR DUBE: Yes, I do agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well surely it was vitally important that you should let your organisation know what had happened so they could prepare to deal with this if it suddenly blew up in their face that this young hero of the struggle was a police informer who had been executed by his own organisation. Wasn't that very important, that the ANC should have been informed of this?

MR DUBE: Yes, it was important, that I know.

CHAIRPERSON: And you made effort to at all till after July.

MR DUBE: What I said is that the situation was not conducive for me to have done that at the time. I was in difficult conditions and it's a different time altogether from now.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it that you did not want the ANC to know that you had been responsible for the death of this young man?

MR DUBE: No, that is not so, I did want it to know, or the organisation to know.

MR RICHARD: But you did nothing to let them know until very late in the day, in other words after ...(intervention)

MR DUBE: I deny the fact you've put forward now that I did nothing, I did explicitly emphasise the fact that the situation at the time was not conducive for me to have done that. The only problem that there is here is that I delayed in giving the report.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you it would have been a simple and easy matter and completely regular and normal for you to break whatever chain of command there was and tell the truth. It would have been expected of you to do that, nothing less. In fact you hid your secret.

MR DUBE: Well that is your opinion, but what I am saying here is that the situation was not at all conducive,

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that it's the only consistent inference that can be drawn from the facts that you've related on your version, not my opinion. Do you have any comment as to what other inference a reasonable could draw from the facts that you've related to us? Very well, you do not answer. ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, just on this.

Mr Dube, could you not for example contact Lusaka or Botswana by means of a telephone without revealing where you are, just to give a very brief report that Sicelo was an informer and I had given an order that he should be killed, and you go on to say that the details will be forwarded to you later when convenient, could you not do that for example?

MR DUBE: I did not refuse that I could have done that, but as I said the situation that I was in was not conducive for me. It was difficult logistically as well for me to have done that. I had a person I was reporting to, my senior, and I was involved in these underground activities and at the same time I am commanding people here. So all these things brought together brought difficulties to me to have acted in the manner that you think.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Dube, we know, I think all of us, that by that time there were many people crossing the borders of this country, could you not have merely got a message to your commander that you had an urgent report to make, would he please send someone to contact you?

MR DUBE: That was possible, but as I keep reiterating the fact that it's not easy, it's not, well it is easier said than done. It was not as easy for me to have been able to get somebody who could have done that for me, cross the border and carry that. I also explained yesterday that logistically it was highly impracticable.

ADV SANDI: Could you not make an anonymous call to a local newspaper and say this young man has been killed because he was an informer, and you don't reveal your identity and where you're calling from?

MR DUBE: No, that did not cross my mind, or it did not occur in my mind.

ADV SANDI: If Sicelo was an informer as you say, was it not important for other informers to know that they would be killed if they continued infiltrating the organisation, they would be killed like Sicelo?

MR DUBE: That was of great importance, yes.

ADV SANDI: Did you, generally speaking, did you have any discussions with Dumakude about this problem of informers infiltrating MK units?

MR DUBE: If I may ask, pose this question, as to when exactly, when I was still within the country or outside the country?

MR DUBE: Whilst you were within the country.

MR DUBE: No, because he was not commanding me directly.

ADV SANDI: And outside the country?

CHAIRPERSON: So you're again relying on this chain of command, that because you couldn't go to Lusaka and you couldn't speak to your commander you were not prepared to tell the man above him about the problems that had arisen. Is that what you would have us believe, Mr Dube?

MR DUBE: As a disciplined soldier, yes.

MR RICHARD: With regard to Ellis Part, wasn't Mr Dumakude your direct commander?

MR DUBE: Yesterday I did make mention of the fact that I am not prepared to account for the Ellis Park incident and I'm not here for that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: You will answer the question, the question is not with relation to the Ellis Park incident, it is relating to this incident. Was he your immediate commander at that time, in June/July 1988?

MR DUBE: Yes, that is so, he was a commander.

MR RICHARD: Now before I leave this point, to me it's axiomatic and obvious that any point in time a person in the field such as you were at that time would have an emergency fall-back line of communication. Did you have such a line of communication between January and July?

MR DUBE: You mean a line of communication with him?

MR RICHARD: With your organisation, MK. If there was a real crisis of great importance that you had to communicate things about upwards, was there not an emergency fall-back position in place at all times, depending on the urgency and the need and the importance of the crisis?

MR DUBE: The only thing would have been for me to leave for Lusaka or go to Lusaka.

CHAIRPERSON: It suddenly struck me, it hasn't been raised, that wouldn't the immediate crisis have arisen in October 1987 when you were led to believe that one of your cell members had been arrested by the police and was perhaps being interrogated by them, that it should at that stage have been important to let the organisation know that there was a possible danger that might arise?

MR DUBE: That is important, but what's important the most here is the fact that I was a commander in this field, in a war zone field, so I also could have taken the decisions, depending on my discretion.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no decision for you to take if you suddenly discovered one morning armed Security Policemen at your back. This young man according to you had followed you around, knew where you went, how you travelled, if he was now a police informer it was you who was at risk and all the cells under you, that that was what you should tell your organisation, that you might suddenly find yourself arrested because of information supplied. Wasn't this very important?

MR DUBE: First of all, I have to be sure about whatever matter I will report, I will not report based on assumptions, that is not acceptable.

Secondly, I was not certain as to his whereabouts, I had to try to find out as to where he was at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew he had been arrested, that was the first point, he just disappeared, you caused enquiries to be made by his friends in his cell, they were unable to give you information. That is what I'm suggesting you should have reported, not that he was an informer, you didn't know that, but that this man had been arrested and there had been no word of him since that time.

MR DUBE: The problem here was the fact that this whole thing was incomplete, I had to be certain about all the facts.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you decided to kill him very quickly without being very certain, except from you say he told you. You weren't certain of the facts as to how much you were at risk, were you, because you didn't ask him what he'd told them, you just came to a decision in a matter of minutes, didn't you?

MR DUBE: I was certain as I had already explained.

MR RICHARD: Right, we go back to the following scenario. We know that on the 12th of October 1987 the deceased is detained, abused in the sense of being assaulted and intimidated by the police, with the request from them that he become an informer. That incident was not reported by the press, but we know that that did transpire because the deceased, immediately after the incident, went and reported what had happened to him and made statements to, particularly the attorneys forming the liaison between him and the rest of the world. Did you know about that transaction?

MR DUBE: I did not know that. I think I admitted to that fact yesterday.

MR RICHARD: Then on the version that I'm here to put to you, the ceased elects to leave his home in Soweto and goes and stays with people in Johannesburg, and I will tell you that one of the people in Johannesburg that he stayed with was also an underground operative and that Sicelo was fully aware of his activities and that this person also had arms caches in his residence and that nothing happened to him. Would you able to contradict, comment or rebut what I've just said?

MR DUBE: I have no answer to that.

MR RICHARD: In other words, you know nothing about what I'm telling you, is that your answer?

MR DUBE: As I said yesterday, yes.

ADV SANDI: Mr Richard, can you just explain that. Did? - according to this information you've just put to the witness, did Sicelo know that this person from Johannesburg had weapons?

MR RICHARD: Yes. That person will be called.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you also indicated earlier, I'm not sure of this, was that person a member of the ANC or Umkhonto?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Is there any reason why you shouldn't mention the name of the person?

MR RICHARD: I have already, that's Mr Hlowela(?). I will call him later in the proceedings.

Now if the deceased had been a police informer, isn't it a reasonable inference that either the people that he was staying with in Johannesburg or members of the cell that he was a member of, on your version, that there would have been some police activity in relation to someone associated and ...(indistinct) him?

MR DUBE: I'd already said that I know nothing. Even about the place he used to stay in Johannesburg, I know nothing in relation to that.

MR RICHARD: Well my proposition which I put to you is at this stage isn't it obvious that the deceased was not an informer as suspected by you, and your evidence on which you made that decision was anything but substantial, and that you made a mistake?

MR DUBE: No, it was not a mistake.

MR RICHARD: Do you still think that Mr Sicelo Dhlomo was a police informer, do you still have that opinion?

MR DUBE: I said that and I'm reiterating that fact again.

MR RICHARD: I don't know what your answer is. Do you still think he was an informer?

MR DUBE: Yes, I'm still saying that.

MR RICHARD: And you are completely confident and believe in your own mind that you made the correct decision at all levels and there was no possibility of error in your decision?

MR DUBE: As I've explained that under the circumstances at the time there was nothing else for me to have done but what I did.

MR RICHARD: What was Mr Grasskopf's reaction to the report when you made it to him?

MR DUBE: He said to me he will ...(indistinct), and that's it.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I did not hear the answer.

MR DUBE: He said he'll report that issue to the commander, that's it.

MR RICHARD: It is an idea that we will make contact with Mr Grasskopf to ascertain what his comment on this question is. Are you happy that he will corroborate you in what you've just said?

MR DUBE: Yes, I'm sure he will corroborate what I've just told you.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, before I conclude, may I look to Mr Dhlomo to check whether there are any further questions he wants to put? Chairperson and Honourable Committee I leave the matter now.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Dube, you will agree with me that after Sicelo was killed he was given a hero's funeral, it was a mass funeral, is it not so?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And the leaders of the liberation struggle then identified him as a hero and put a blame to the Security Forces for his killing. You have already confirmed that, is it so?

MR DUBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now, after you gave a report to Mr Grasskopf, did he accept that report from you?

MR DUBE: I think so because he said he was going to report it to the commander.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, apart from that, did he accept that report that you had made, that which you were supposed to have done, in the circumstances? Did he accept that you have done a right thing within the meaning of the liberation struggle then?

MR DUBE: He did not comment on that, he just said that he would report it to the commander.

MR MAPOMA: It was a trend in the liberation struggle those days that when an informer has been identified he be exposed to the public, be it when he was still alive or when he died, do you agree with me?

MR DUBE: Yes, I do agree.

MR MAPOMA: And in the case of Sicelo the ANC never made a public statement where it disclaimed Sicelo, is that not correct?

MR DUBE: That is true.

MR MAPOMA: Does it not surprise you?

MR DUBE: It is surprising.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you can comment on it, but I think in fairness I should it to you, the thought that comes to me from what has just been said to you. If the Security Police knew that he was an informer and that Sicelo was going to visit you with his transmitter and had done so, is it not surprising that they did not seize the opportunity, when this all this publicity was being launched, to explain that this hero was in fact one of their agents who'd been killed by ANC members? They made no attempt to do that, did they? - the police.

MR DUBE: I do not know about it, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you never saw anything in the newspapers about it?

MR DUBE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Sorry Chairperson, I've just have one issue to ask which I just forgot. I'm sorry for not having asking it before.

Mr Dube, when you interrogated Sicelo and when he said he admitted to you, so you say, that he was a police informer, did he tell you who his handler was in the Security Forces?

MR DUBE: No, he did not.

ADV SANDI: He was not interested, Mr Mapoma, to know that.

MR MAPOMA: Pardon, Sir?

ADV SANDI: He was not interested to know who was his handler.

MR MAPOMA: I'll leave it at that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Right, ...(indistinct).

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I would appreciate some direction here as to whether I could call the second applicant, or will you get the other witnesses which were set to be here and perhaps you wanted to deal with?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR RICHARD: The only witness present here at the moment I believe and who kept his undertaking is Mr Dumakude, but I ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think it might be - subject to his convenience and anyone else's convenience it would be better to hear the applicants first. I think you were thinking rather in terms of the doctor, weren't you, who might have been here and stood, who seems to intervene at some stage? I think, save for her, we should proceed with the applicants.

MR RICHARD: Between the discussion in chambers and now I haven't had a chance to telephone again.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ... Mr Dumakude doesn't mind waiting so he can hear what other people may have to say before he is called to give evidence, okay?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may I rearrange the order of the applicants?

MR RICHARD: I would object to that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well we were going to take the adjournment at half past eleven, would it suite you if we take the adjournment now and you can sort matters out and discuss it with your colleagues?

MR KOOPEDI: That's okay with me.

MR RICHARD: My opinion in the matter is I would like to see Tshabalala called next, in the order that they appear on the cover sheet.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not necessarily the order chosen by them, that is an arbitrary order which is not if you will look, in the order of the numbers, Makhubu is 5311 and Tshabalala is 5312. If we go by that we change the order, so I think we'll let him choose his ...

MR RICHARD: As the Chairperson pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment now till eleven thirty and we will then continue again.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: AM 5311/97

ADV SANDI: Will you please raise your right hand to take the oath?

CLIVE MHLAULI MAKHUBU: (sworn states)

MR KOOPEDI: May I then proceed on the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

Is it correct that you are a co-applicant in this matter, the amnesty application for the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: May I just ascertain on what channel the witness is, apparently he has a problem?

ADV SANDI: It should be channel 3 I think.

MR KOOPEDI: Now would you confirm that this killing happened in January 1998?

MR MAKHUBU: That is true.

MR KOOPEDI: Now at this stage were you a member of any political organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Which political organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: I was a member of Soyco.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is it correct that you were at some stage, I believe during 1987, recruited into a unit, an underground unit which was commanded by the first applicant?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct, it was in 1986, not '87.

MR KOOPEDI: Now the deceased, did you know the deceased Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I knew him.

MR KOOPEDI: How did you know him?

MR MAKHUBU: Firstly I knew him as an activist who used to attend Pace College and he was a member of Soyco.

MR KOOPEDI: We've heard evidence that Sicelo became a member of your unit, is that correct?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Can you recall when this was?

MR MAKHUBU: Around July 1987.

MR KOOPEDI: Now would you briefly explain to this Honourable Committee the circumstances that led to Sicelo's death.

MR MAKHUBU: What I can explain is that the reason that I shot Sicelo was because he was an informer.

MR KOOPEDI: After Sicelo joined your unit, was there an instance where he vanished?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you recall when this was?

MR MAKHUBU: I think it was from late October until January.

MR KOOPEDI: Was there ever a discussion about Sicelo, that is amongst you and your cell members or unit members, during this disappearance?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, we did have a discussion.

MR KOOPEDI: What was discussed?

MR MAKHUBU: After about a week had passed we met and informed the commander that we do not know where he was, we had last seen him or heard of him the time when he was supposedly arrested and we were still waiting for him to account on what had happened to him.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you know why he was arrested?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I do not know.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Let us go to the day Sicelo was killed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the commander was Mr Dube whom we heard before you?

MR MAKHUBU: Mr Dube was the senior commander.

CHAIRPERSON: He is the commander that you informed, was he? You see you just said "we informed the commander", is that Mr Dube?

MR MAKHUBU: It's Mr Dube.

MR KOOPEDI: Maybe let's also ascertain this. In the unit, what was your position?

MR MAKHUBU: I was the commander of the unit, but Dube was my immediate superior.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. On the day Sicelo was killed, can you briefly tell us what happened, events leading to the ultimate death of Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU

"What I can say is that before that sad day when we killed him, when school re-opened in January I met Sipho because we schooled together at Emdeni Secondary, and he informed me that he had seen Sicelo and he had explained to him that we have a concern about his disappearance and he must make sure that he meets me and report to me."

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't quite get the names, you met who?

MR MAKHUBU: Sipho.

CHAIRPERSON: You Sipho at the school and he told you he had met Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And told him he should report to you?

MR MAKHUBU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

DR TSOTSI: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

DR TSOTSI: You say that before ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: There is a problem with the speaker's mike.

DR TSOTSI: You said "I met Sipho and he informed ..." Mr Sicelo had told him, he had met Sicelo ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And he had told Sicelo to report to ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: To report to him.

MR KOOPEDI: Please go on.

MR MAKHUBU

"Then on the Sunday that he died he arrived at my home in the morning, and I told him that we had an important matter to discuss. I cannot quite remember where he wanted to go at the time. I said that is fine he can go wherever he wishes to go, but he must make sure that he returns because there is that important matter we have to discuss, we have a mission to accomplish. That was the last we saw each other, it was during the morning. Then he left.

I was then in the location for the duration of the day. In the afternoon Mr Dube arrived and we were together. We had arranged that we would meet, the two of us would meet on that Sunday. As we were still sitting there, Sicelo arrived, that is myself and Mr Dube.

At that time I had not informed Mr Dube that I had met Sicelo. I then said that I should go and telephone Sipho and Precious. I went into the house and I called them and I told them to be on standby because we were going to meet as the commander was present.

When I came out of the house I found them standing outside and when I got to them the commander showed me something, a device that was broken and he said, do you see this and I said yes, and he said this is a transmitter which Sicelo had been carrying.

The situation at that time just changed, he said we should talk alone. I told Sicelo to get into the house and then I asked from the commander what should be do now, because we had agreed before that if we ever meet up with him we should question him about his whereabouts, but now that there was this new element, the transmitter, the situation had changed.

I said that it would be problematic to interrogate him, the option that would not present us with problems would be to eliminate him. We thereafter called him and we left the house. We went to Leolo(?), that is the three of us.

When we arrived there at Leolo it was about, it was just before dusk. I then went to collect Sipho in Siboseng(?). I left Dube and Sicelo there. Thereafter we all went to Dube Extension. When we arrived there I knew what my task was, it was to shoot him. There was a bit tree in that area and we asked him to sit down and I withdrew my gun and shot him, and that was the end of it."

MR KOOPEDI: Now after the shooting, were you ordered to do anything by your commander?

MR MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

MR KOOPEDI: No, I am referring to after the shooting, after Sicelo was shot, what happened?

MR MAKHUBU: We left him there and dispersed.

MR KOOPEDI: And were you given any particular instructions about this matter, do you talk about it, don't you talk about it?

MR MAKHUBU: The agreement was that we were not going to discuss it with anybody else, it would remain amongst the four of us.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you know that for you to ask for amnesty and perhaps get amnesty the offence or deed that you did should be political, would you say the killing of Sicelo was politically motivated?

MR MAKHUBU: I believe that at that time and even now the reason for killing him was political, it wasn't personal.

MR KOOPEDI: Other than perhaps it being an order that you should eliminate him, do you think that, in your personal opinion, was there a political objective that you achieve or that you sought to achieve by killing Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: Personally I believe, yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Which is?

MR MAKHUBU: Firstly, we operated as an underground unit. Besides the unit that I was involved in I was also involved in other individuals and other units and if any person amongst us would be arrested it would have an impact on our struggle, therefore I felt that it was better to lose the life of one person rather than to lose the lives of many other people, which would have a negative impact on the struggle.

ADV SANDI: Did Sicelo know that you were involved with other people from other units?

MR MAKHUBU: In most instances I would inform them that they may not be able to get hold of me because I would be busy with other people.

ADV SANDI: Did he know who those people were?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't believe he knew them.

MR KOOPEDI: Is there anything that you wish to add to the brief testimony you've just given?

MR MAKHUBU: What I can say is, I am grateful to be granted the opportunity to explain about this issue because I know that it was a controversial issue and the family didn't know what had happened, even other comrades didn't know what had happened, but because of my commitment then to secrecy, it was not possible for me to divulge the information, but now I have been afforded that opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: You said a moment ago that "we operated as an underground unit".

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that's what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do as an underground unit?

MR MAKHUBU: We carried out operations.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm asking you what operations.

MR MAKHUBU: Fighting the apartheid regime.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do?

MR MAKHUBU: I am not certain whether I should answer questions regarding to my political activities in general or those concerning the issue of Sicelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you don't want to make a full and frank disclosure you need not, and your application will be refused, do you understand that? I take it your lawyer has told you.

MR MAKHUBU: I have requested amnesty for the death of Sicelo Dhlomo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, nothing else, you have not made mention of any other activities that you conducted, that you carried out, for which you say you would be entitled to amnesty, so I'm asking you what other actions you took in conjunction with Sicelo.

MR MAKHUBU: With regards to Sicelo we had not carried out an operation with him.

CHAIRPERSON: So since the time he was a member of your unit you did not carry out operations as a unit, is that what you are saying?

MR MAKHUBU: No, we had not performed one.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not carry out operations from the time Sicelo joined your unit?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had no knowledge of any operations carried out by you.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Now finally, you state on paragraph 11(b) of your application form - that would be page 24, Chairperson, in the bundle of documents - that the order for killing Sicelo was given by I J Dube, would that be the first applicant who appeared here?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that's him.

MR KOOPEDI: And do you think that you were under any obligation to follow an order issued by him?

MR MAKHUBU: I followed an order that I understood well.

MR KOOPEDI: There are no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

ADV SANDI: Sorry, that is not very clear to me. When you followed this order, were you acting freely, would you have chosen not to have followed the order, what was the situation?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not quite understand the question.

ADV SANDI: When you followed this order from Dube, I want to find out from you were you acting freely and voluntarily, you were not forced by Dube to carry out his order.

MR MAKHUBU: He did not force me, he issued out an order and I followed it.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you get the pistol from?

MR MAKHUBU: I had it in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you get it from?

MR MAKHUBU: I had obtained it from the commander.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you get it?

MR MAKHUBU: When we formed the unit I had the gun at that time.

ADV SANDI: Where was Sipho and Precious when you shot and killed Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: They were present.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Before I start, would you please refer to paragraph (b) on page 23 of the bundle. You have a bundle available to you. The applicant doesn't have a bundle of the papers.

MR MAKHUBU: ..(no English translation)

CHAIRPERSON: You can read it to him.

MR RICHARD: At that page there's a question which asks your justification for regarding such acts, omission/omissions or offence/offences as act/acts omission/omissions or offences associated with a political objective, you answer is

"Please refer to J I Dube's statement"

It's in handwriting, whose handwriting is that?

MR MAKHUBU: It's mine.

MR RICHARD: Now when did you complete that document?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember the date.

MR RICHARD: Was it this year, last year, the year before?

MR MAKHUBU: It cannot be this year.

MR RICHARD: According to the last page of the document, that's page 26, you signed the affidavit on the 9th of May 1997 while in Cape Town.

MR MAKHUBU: I did not sign it in Cape Town.

MR RICHARD: Because here there's a date stamp which says

"Family advocate to translate it/"Gesins advokaat Hooggeregshof/High Court, KPA, Cape Provincial Administration."

... and that date stamp. So that means you weren't there when that person put his date stamp on the document, you weren't in Cape Town at all.

MR MAKHUBU: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should read a little higher, it's not only the date stamp, the document says

"This declaration was duly sworn to, solemnly affirmed before me on this 9th day of May 1997 at Cape Town."

MR RICHARD: Did you hear what the Honourable Judge said? If you look at page 26, paragraph 7, is that incorrect?

MR MAKHUBU: I wrote the statement in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you in fact ever been to Cape Town?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Now, the next inference I must draw is no-one asked you to take an oath when you completed this document, no-one asked you whether it was true, whether you had read it, whether you regarded an oath as binding on your conscience, or whether you had an objection to taking an oath, or any of those things?

MR MAKHUBU: That is so.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard.

Do you know this person whose name is written here as a Commissioner of Oaths, Samodien Mohammed? Is that name known to you?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: If we go back one page, if you look at the bottom of the page on page 25, is that your signature?

MR MAKHUBU: It is my handwriting.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do with the form when you'd finished filling it up?

MR MAKHUBU: I submitted it to the TRC Desk at the ANC offices.

MR RICHARD: Where is that office?

MR MAKHUBU: Shell House.

MR RICHARD: Now when you say you submitted it, you went there with the completed form and handed it to the desk, who was at the desk?

MR MAKHUBU: I went to Shell House, obtained the form and filled it in there, but I do not remember the person with whom I left the form, he was the head of that desk.

MR RICHARD: Now while you were filling it in were you with people or were you alone or did you have assistance?

MR MAKHUBU: I filled it on my own.

MR RICHARD: What documents did you have with you while you filled it in, what papers?

MR MAKHUBU: This is the only form that I filled in.

MR RICHARD: So that means you had no documents to which you referred and you filled in the form completely from your own memory and there was nothing else with it when you handed it to the desk?

MR MAKHUBU: That is true.

MR RICHARD: Now if you go to page 23, again paragraph (b), you make a statement there, would you please read it out - I'll read it to you

"Please refer to Mr J I Dube's statement."

MR RICHARD: At that stage did you know what the statement said, or which statement it was?

MR MAKHUBU: He's the first person who applied with regards to this matter and he informed me that he had applied for the matter and thereafter I also went to apply.

MR RICHARD: But from your answer I gather you didn't know what his application said or what it contained or what was annexed to it.

MR MAKHUBU: He had a copy which he showed to me.

MR RICHARD: Well when did he show it to you?

MR MAKHUBU: After he had submitted his application.

ADV SANDI: You say he showed it to you, did you read this statement of Mr Dube?

MR MAKHUBU: I read the statement that he had written.

MR RICHARD: Now if you go to page 3 of the bundle, on the top right-hand corner you'll see a date stamp which reads

"Truth and Reconciliation Commission 1997-05-10."

And something of the Investigation Unit:

"National Director"

Do you see that?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now your application is dated the 9th, so that means you saw Mr Dube's statement after the 10th, isn't that obvious from the papers?

MR MAKHUBU: That is not true.

MR RICHARD: Well why then do you say to me that you saw it after Mr Dube handed in his application, because he handed it in on the 10th, you handed yours in the day before?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say he handed it in on the 10th? The date stamp you've got is the date stamp of the Investigative Unit.

MR RICHARD: Well the only other ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So that is when they got it.

MR RICHARD: I take your point.

Now what we're now getting to is, did you read Mr Dube's statement?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I read it.

MR RICHARD: Now if we go to page 10 you'll see a document there which says

"Statement sworn under oath"

Is that the document you read?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Did you discuss its contents with Mr Dube?

MR MAKHUBU: No, we did not discuss it.

MR RICHARD: But did you read it carefully?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I read it.

MR RICHARD: Even if you didn't take an oath when you handed in your application, which may render it ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, you asked him if he read that statement carefully and his answer was just that he read it.

Did you follow the question, Sir? The question was whether you read this statement carefully, how carefully did you go through it?

MR MAKHUBU: I read it and I understood it.

MR RICHARD: And at that stage you were happy that this statement correctly recorded the sequence of events and the details of the shooting of the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I saw it as being general.

MR RICHARD: Were you aware that it set out a version of what happened in what order of events?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, it was a broad and general statement.

MR RICHARD: Do that mean you felt at liberty at some other stage to amplify, to vary it, to change it, to adapt it?

MR MAKHUBU: If there is something that is not clearly understood, I can explain it.

MR RICHARD: But did you realise that that was a version that you represented to be the truth?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And do you represent it to be the truth?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now when Mr Dube gave it to you, what did he tell you?

MR MAKHUBU: He told me that he had applied for amnesty with regards to the death of Sicelo and because I was also involved in the matter it would be advisable if I apply as well.

MR RICHARD: And you gave you this statement, and what did he say about this statement?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember.

MR RICHARD: Did he tell you that that was his version of what had happened and you should support him or disagree with him, amplify it, vary it, put in a statement of your own, any of the above?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: However, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I clarify something here, I'm afraid I'm a little confused.

Did he give you his application which is on page 3?

MR MAKHUBU: No, he did not give me all of that.

MR RICHARD: Did he give you any of the application or did he only give you the statement?

MR MAKHUBU: He gave me the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: That's on page 10.

MR RICHARD: Where was he when you were filling in your form?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember correctly. I do not known, he may have been at work, but I filled the form in Johannesburg.

MR RICHARD: At that stage did you still regard John Ithumaleng Dube as your commander?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not a soldier now.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I missed your answer.

CHAIRPERSON: "I'm not a soldier now."

MR RICHARD: Then, in 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1997, what were you?

MR MAKHUBU: I was working.

MR RICHARD: As what?

MR MAKHUBU: I was working as a researcher at Afrisearch(?)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) researcher at Afrisearch if I understood the answer correctly.

Very well. Now we go back to 1987, for how long as at you say July 1987, when the deceased was put forward as a potential member of your cell, had you known the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I knew Mr Dhlomo from 1986.

MR RICHARD: How did you meet him?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not understand what you are referring to, do you mean meeting in him in general terms or meeting him as a member of the unit?

MR RICHARD: You met him in 1986, is that the first time you met him, the first time that you knew there was a person called Sicelo Dhlomo?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now how did you come to meet him, where were you, who introduced him to you?

MR MAKHUBU: We met is Sosco, so no-one introduced me to him because I was already a member of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, where did you say you met?

MR MAKHUBU: I met him in 1986 because he was a member of Sosco and I was as well a member, so no-one introduced me to him formally.

ADV SANDI: Sosco, will that be the Soweto Student Congress?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now let me clarify something I might have misheard. Is Soyco which is the Soweto Youth Council, the same as Sosco?

MR MAKHUBU: Soweto Student Congress.

MR RICHARD: Are they the same organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Now to which organisation did the deceased belong?

MR MAKHUBU: Soweto Student Congress.

MR RICHARD: That's Sosco?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And you were also a member of that organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now when did you meet him during 1986, which month, day?

MR MAKHUBU: I can't specifically remember because we were a number of us in the struggle as activists, so I cannot remember his case as such, as to when in isolation of others as well.

MR RICHARD: Was it before the middle of the year or after the middle of the year?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure about that.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember the event at which you met him?

MR MAKHUBU: We had met normally at some meeting.

MR RICHARD: Had you met him often or once or twice in 1986?

MR MAKHUBU: I met with him more than once.

MR RICHARD: And were there a number or weeks or months between the different meetings?

MR MAKHUBU: If my memory serves me well, the meetings were held every week if my memory serves me right.

MR RICHARD: Now as a result of these meetings did you get to know the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: Knowing a person as attending the same meeting does not suggest at all that you will be knowing the person through and through, so my knowing him would have been as a result of attending the same meetings as it happened.

MR RICHARD: Did you know where he lived?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I knew.

MR RICHARD: Did you know the name of the school which he attended?

MR MAKHUBU: Pace.

MR RICHARD: Did you know what he was doing at Pace, which standard he was in?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Did you know that he was a member of the SRC at Pace College?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: So while you may not have become friends and socialised, you knew who he was and what he did?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now do you know the address of the Dhlomo family?

MR MAKHUBU: I know their house physically, I don't know their address as such.

MR RICHARD: Now did you ever stay at the Dhlomo house?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't understand what you mean by "stay".

MR RICHARD: Did you ever sleep at the Dhlomo house overnight?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: When was that?

MR MAKHUBU: I think in 1987 when I was still in my unit.

MR RICHARD: How often? You say - would the word "frequently" be accurate?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know how to explain it, but it won't be true when you say frequently. I don't think frequently will be an appropriate word to use.

MR RICHARD: Did you sleep there often?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Very well. While you were there did you get to know the family and bits and pieces of what had happened, history about recent events, did you share meals with them?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure, but I was quite used to them.

MR RICHARD: Now would you know from your discussions and familiarity with the Dhlomo family and the deceased, anything about the parents, the Detainees Parents Support Committee?

MR MAKHUBU: I know that.

MR RICHARD: Well what did this Committee do?

MR MAKHUBU: I know it used to support the parents, especially those ones whose children were in detention.

MR RICHARD: And that means you knew as well that the deceased was a regular and reliable voluntary worker at that organisation.

MR MAKHUBU: I know he used to work there, but as to whether he was a loyal or honest worker I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Well on a number of occasions during the October, November, December '87 period you went to their offices and met with the deceased there.

MR MAKHUBU: There is no truth in what you have just said.

MR RICHARD: So that means that if I call a witness, Ntombi Masakari, to say that she remembers you being there on a number of occasions, she is a liar?

MR MAKHUBU: She'll be lying, there's nothing like that.

MR RICHARD: So you were never there at their premises ever at any point in time?

MR MAKHUBU: You are talking and referring to that period October, November, December, I never was there.

MR RICHARD: Well then that's your answer, you were never there. Do you know where there offices are?

MR MAKHUBU: I knew their location.

MR RICHARD: Well where are their offices?

MR MAKHUBU: It was Khotso House.

MR RICHARD: So that means we have established that as at October, November, December, January '87 and '88, you knew that the deceased was associated with the organisation and where their officer were?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't dispute that, it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he has agreed to those months, you are now, the question you asked him earlier was whether he knew about the organisation and he said he knew the deceased used to work there. You are not trying to commit him to saying ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: Well when did you become aware of where the Detainees Parents Support Committee had offices in Khotso House?

MR MAKHUBU: I also once was arrested.

MR RICHARD: When was that?

MR MAKHUBU: In 1986.

MR RICHARD: In 1986. And what is the connection between your arrest and the Detainees Parents Support Committee?

MR MAKHUBU: Because during that time when I was still in detention an attorney came to me and told me that he was from the committee.

MR RICHARD: And what else did he tell you about the committee?

MR MAKHUBU: Is that related to my amnesty application or amnesty at all?

MR RICHARD: It's related and relevant to what you knew about the deceased and his activities.

MR MAKHUBU: In that case, please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: What, in 1986 when you were arrested, did you get informed about what the Detainees Parents Support Committee did? - a lawyer came to see you.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes. The attorney did not tell me the activities of the committee, but what happened is my parents during my time of detention went to them. As to how they got to know about them may have well been from other activities or activists.

MR RICHARD: Now you were arrested in 1986, were you aware that during that year the deceased was also arrested?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't quite understand your question.

MR RICHARD: You say that during 1986 you were arrested, is that correct?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is correct.

MR RICHARD: My next question is, were you aware that during 1986, the deceased was also arrested and detained?

MR MAKHUBU: What I know is that he also once got arrested in 1986.

MR RICHARD: Now were you aware that during the course of that arrest and detention he claimed to be assaulted and indeed tortured by security personnel?

MR MAKHUBU: That was usual practise to all the detainees by the police.

MR RICHARD: Did that happen to you?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: How did they torture you?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember quite exactly the things they did to me, but there was a time when I lost my consciousness. I don't know what happened. I regained my consciousness late in the afternoon, so I will not know exactly what they went on and did to me during that period.

MR RICHARD: Now what did your interrogators want of you while they were abusing you, torturing you?

MR MAKHUBU: These question you are posing to me, I am having a problem with them. I really wonder if there is any correlation between such questioning and my amnesty application.

MR RICHARD: If your legal representative wanted to object to the questions, I believe he would do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what is the relevance of how he was tortured in 1986? ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: What I'm building up to, document(sic), is that the deceased was known to the witness, he was reportedly arrested and detained for a period of three months during 1986, between the periods of June to November, during that torture he was pressured to become an informer, that's the deceased, and I would like to establish that this witness knew of those facts.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but the difficulty I have there, Mr Richard, is it in dispute really that the deceased was beaten up and tortured by the police?

MR RICHARD: I'll shorten it by asking a direct question.

When you met the deceased, were you aware that he had been tortured and that during those periods of torture the pressure that had been applied on him was to turn against the struggle and become an informer?

MR MAKHUBU: That I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Was that also quite a normal Security Police custom in those days, that if they arrested and detained persons they tried to turn them against their organisations?

MR MAKHUBU: That does not at all warrant the fact that that happened to Sicelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it normally happen, was it common to hear that they did this?

MR MAKHUBU: Maybe those who experienced that can be in a better position to explain thus far, but I'm not.

MR RICHARD: You were tortured you say and you lost consciousness, did they try and do that to you?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, my learned friend is going back to this matter of the witness having been arrested and tortured, I object to that line of questioning because I don't see its relevance to this matter and I had not taken the liberty of objecting to my learned friend's questioning because I thought he would know how to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand what he's trying to make, the point is he is trying to suggest that everybody who went through the hands of the Security Police in those days was subjected to this form of brutality and this attempt to turn them.

MR KOOPEDI: I believe if he wants to make that point he shouldn't use the witness to make that point.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) witness went through their hands, he may well have been subjected to the same treatment.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, in any event the witness has answered this question.

MR RICHARD: Yes. I don't believe the witness has answered the question whether there was an attempt to turn him as well during his torture.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I understood he said it wasn't, didn't he? Well put it to him as a direct question.

MR RICHARD: While you were being tortured, did your interrogators make any attempt to turn you against your organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: No, they did not.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless as you said, if I understand you correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong, the interrogators for the State at the time did that to other people, you knew that?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that was me rather than him, he said you'd better ask those other people.

MR RICHARD: Well, Mr Makhubu, were you aware of any other people at that time, '98/'87, who had been subjected to torture and while being tortured had been pressurised to turn against your organisation?

MR MAKHUBU: I have no experience relating to that. I've never had anyone relating that to me.

MR RICHARD: Now again I need clarity, you were aware that this had happened to the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I did explain that I know nothing.

MR RICHARD: But you knew that in 1986 he had been detained?

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that I knew that.

MR RICHARD: What you're now saying is that you do not know what happened to him while in detention. Didn't he ever report to you? What's you answer, did he report it to you?

MR MAKHUBU: But I've already said. How many times must I say?

MR RICHARD: Is that - I'm asking the question, don't you want to answer the question? Did he report it to you, yes or no? - simple question.

MR MAKHUBU: I explained that he did not report it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have any reason to report to you in 1986?

MR MAKHUBU: He wouldn't have had any reason to relate that to me or report that to me.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) then we go on to '87, October 1987, by which time I understand you had already visited the Dhlomo family. Were you aware of him being arrested in that month?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't quite understand.

MR RICHARD: As at October 1987, is it not correct that by that stage you had visited the Dhlomo household?

MR MAKHUBU: I am not sure as to how to answer this question.

MR RICHARD: Well I can't help you. Did you by October 1987 visit the Dhlomo household?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember visiting.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there's a little confusion here. A short while ago you told us you had visited the Dhlomo household and you'd stayed there overnight.

MR MAKHUBU: There's nothing different I have said. For me to have answered that I did spend a night there is because you had asked me if I spent a night there or not and I said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the question is now, had you done this before October 1987?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a simple question.

MR KOOPEDI: The way the question was interpreted to the witness it appeared as if the question is: "Did you sleep there during October 87?"

MR RICHARD: I can't comment on the translation.

Now at that stage did you know that the accused had been prosecuted for the - sorry the deceased, had been prosecuted for an attempted murder and had been acquitted of that?

MR MAKHUBU: That I know.

MR RICHARD: When do you remember that acquittal happening?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure as to the time, but I know it happened.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR RICHARD: That was around the 6th of December 1986, that's of record. Now were you aware of any other prosecutions against the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I remember the one you've just asked me, but not about others.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember him standing trial on a charge of possession of a firearm?

INTERPRETER: On a charge of what?

MR RICHARD: Possession of a firearm.

MR MAKHUBU: I don't quite remember, but I think I once heard something to that effect.

MR RICHARD: Were you aware that he was given a five year suspended sentence for that?

MR MAKHUBU: I heard so.

MR RICHARD: Now that event happened early during 1987, when did you have knowledge of that event?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure as I've already mentioned I so heard.

MR RICHARD: Now when as you say the deceased joined your cell, were you aware of these events?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: When, the deceased was recruited into your cell, were you aware of these events? That was sometime in July '87.

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what happened in July '87.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he join your cell?

MR MAKHUBU: If my recollection serves me right I think it was around August.

CHAIRPERSON: 1987?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know then that he had been charged with attempted murder and been acquitted and that he'd been convicted of possession of a firearm and given a suspended sentence?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not follow those events, but I knew that he will be arrested and be released and that went on for quite some time, like any other activist.

CHAIRPERSON: But you told us a moment ago that you heard he'd been given a five year suspended sentence, do you remember telling us that?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I remember that very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Now had you heard that when you got him to join your cell? You were the officer commanding the cell, weren't you?

MR MAKHUBU: I heard the sentence. I don't quite follow the, or I did not quite understand the question, can you please repeat it.

CHAIRPERSON: When he came to join your cell in 1987 in August, did you know that he had a suspended sentence for possession of a firearm?

MR MAKHUBU: What I knew was that he would be arrested and be released from time to time. I knew that as well as what you've said.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want to tell us the truth, because a moment ago you told us, and your counsel will confirm this, that you heard that he had been give a five year sentence for possession of a firearm.

Didn't he, didn't he say that?

MR KOOPEDI: Well he did say that, but he said something further.

CHAIRPERSON: You also said ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone please.

CHAIRPERSON: He also said that he heard, that he knew that he had been prosecuted for attempted murder and acquitted but he wasn't sure when.

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm now asking him a simple question, had he got this, did he know all this when this man joined his cell in August 1987.

MR KOOPEDI: He replied in Zulu that ...(Zulu word) had heard that.

CHAIRPERSON: You heard that before he joined your cell in 1987?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat that last question.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you heard that he had a suspended sentence for possession of a firearm and that he'd been acquitted on a charge of attempted murder before he joined your cell in August 1987?

MR MAKHUBU: I said that I was aware of all that.

MR RICHARD: And as far as the March/April period of the same year, were you aware that the deceased had conducted interviews with the Dutch Television and others and was involved in the making of a television documentary called "Children of Apartheid"?

MR MAKHUBU: The period you are referring to I was in prison.

MR RICHARD: When did you become aware - let me ask a slightly different question. As I understand it you were in prison in 1986, were you in prison again in 1987, if so when?

MR MAKHUBU: To be specific I was arrested in 1986, November, and I was released in 1987, June.

MR RICHARD: On your release in June, did you become aware that the deceased, or sometime after your release, was or had been involved or was still involved in the process of giving interviews to the foreign news media and making television documentaries concerning the "Children of Apartheid" as it became known?

MR MAKHUBU: That I heard.

MR RICHARD: How did you hear it, from who did you hear it?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't want to commit myself with the specifics or with details here because I did not record about the events that transpired at the time, but it was what I was aware of.

MR RICHARD: Was it before or after you had been recruited into your cell?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not certain about that.

MR RICHARD: Right. Now it follows that you were released from prison in June of 1987, so that meant you had to rejoin activities, what was the state of your cell on your release? How many members were there, who was the commander, was there a cell?

MR MAKHUBU: In 1986 when Dube recruited me I was the only one and he initiated a communication again after my release. That is when I realised we should recruit more members.

MR RICHARD: Now who next was recruited?

MR MAKHUBU: The first person I recruited to the cell was Sipho Tshabalala. We had this objective that we had to be four in the cell and I recruited Sipho then. From there he recommended Sicelo, Sipho that is and I as well recruited Sibongiseni and we were complete, four in number.

MR RICHARD: Now what vetting procedure did you go through to check on who was going to join your cell, how did you go about deciding that somebody as a fit and proper person to join the cell?

MR MAKHUBU: There was no prescription as such, but I targeted people who were active in the struggle and people who were prepared to fight. As a person, that is the discretion I used and those were the lines I was following in recruiting.

MR RICHARD: Who gave you those lines, did you decide them yourself or did somebody tell you what to do?

MR MAKHUBU: I had the background furnished by the commander.

MR RICHARD: Very well. Was training provided to the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: By who?

MR MAKHUBU: By Dube.

MR RICHARD: How often?

MR MAKHUBU: I was again not prepared to commit myself, but I know he was given training.

MR RICHARD: What kind of training, training to do what?

MR MAKHUBU: What he trained them on is to check the level of understanding ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I ...

INTERPRETER: The interpreter was trying to establish exactly what the witness had said.

MR MAKHUBU: Besides the fact that commander will check his understanding, the level of understanding and his involvement, specifically he was trained in the usage of AK, Makarov, limpet mines, handgrenades. That's the kind of training he received.

MR RICHARD: Now how often did these training sessions happen, once a day, once a week?

MR MAKHUBU: We were pressurised by the fact that we had to concentrate on training, for instance the first days you will go for training for often days like one day after another, especially in the beginning.

MR RICHARD: And would these training sessions go on for a couple of hours, all day?

MR MAKHUBU: It will be a few hours because that would take place at night.

MR RICHARD: Now by August, would you have considered the deceased properly trained?

MR MAKHUBU: If I go back to that period and refer to that period I would say yes, but today no, not according to today's standards.

MR RICHARD: Now so far what I've understood, the deceased would have been aware of the names of his fellow cell members, who the overall commander of the cell was and that they had firearms, would he have been aware of anything else?

MR MAKHUBU: As far as I know I don't know as to whether there was something else he would have been aware of, I wouldn't know.

Well earlier you stated that the deceased had not participated in any operations or missions, in fact I ask the next question, was he party to the discussion of any planned operations and missions?

MR MAKHUBU: The priority at the time was training. He had not yet reached the level of taking part inasfar ...(indistinct) as I was a commander as well at the time.

MR RICHARD: So that meant at no stage, if I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, was the deceased involved in the planning of any missions or the knowledge of any missions that might take place, he had no such knowledge?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now in that sense you could hardly describe the deceased as a fully trained MK soldier, that description would be wrong?

MR MAKHUBU: We'll be mistaken to assume that because he only went through a crash course.

MR RICHARD: And what was his duty in the cell, what was his function in the cell? What was he supposed to do?

MR MAKHUBU: The first duty was for him to be responsible to find a base or hide-out places.

MR RICHARD: Did he do any of that?

MR MAKHUBU: During that period it's only one that he managed to find or get.

MR RICHARD: Was it ever used?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, it was used by himself and Sipho.

MR RICHARD: And neither Sipho nor him got caught at that place?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When was this that he was using this hide-out?

MR MAKHUBU: It was not an operation for a long time because he was given that task to find hiding places for us and he brought back the report and they went to sleep, himself and Sipho, but it's not like this went on or it was prolonged.

CHAIRPERSON: He was still carrying on his normal duties then, wasn't he?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: He was still carrying on his normal duties, wasn't he, working with the Detainees Parents Support Committee and things of that nature?

MR MAKHUBU: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was still at school, wasn't he?

MR MAKHUBU: I believe he was still at school.

MR RICHARD: And there was nothing wrong with him continuing all his ordinary activities, nothing had changed as far as he was concerned, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what you mean by saying nothing had changed.

MR RICHARD: The fact that he had joined your cell didn't mean that he had to change any of his activities, that he was perfectly at liberty to go wherever he went and to carry on his Detainees Parents Support Committee, Sosco, SRC, schooling, in fact it was expected?

MR MAKHUBU: That was not a problem.

MR RICHARD: Now it follows that if he was working with detained persons parents and going to various meetings concerning the school activities and the SRC and Sosco, he would be seen in and around Soweto on a regular basis.

MR MAKHUBU: He would have been seen where?

MR RICHARD: Around at various places in Soweto and Johannesburg I add. It would have been part of his normal activities to do that, would it not?

MR MAKHUBU: That I won't dispute.

MR RICHARD: So that means when we go to October the 12th 1987, it was not surprising that he was detained on his way to school, he was going about his ordinary activities. Was it surprising?

MR MAKHUBU: I am not surprised because he was not the first one to be detained at school.

MR RICHARD: So that means, if I understand your answer, you were aware of his detention on the way to school on that day?

MR MAKHUBU: I was not sure as to how he was arrested or he got arrested.

MR RICHARD: Now what do you know of that event, tell us please.

MR MAKHUBU: What I heard was he was arrested. As to whether he was going to DPSC on that particular day in question I don't know because he used to go there quite a lot, but what I know is he was arrested on that day. As to when and how he was arrested and all that pertaining to that I don't know, I'm not sure.

MR RICHARD: Do you know where he was arrested?

DR TSOTSI: Mr Richard, I don't want to disturb you, but of what importance is that question, the question where he was detained or is it ...?

MR RICHARD: Before explaining the relevance of the question I would prefer an answer.

MR KOOPEDI: The witness has answered this question.

MR RICHARD: What was the answer? I haven't heard him answer me whether he knew where the deceased was arrested on that day.

MR KOOPEDI: The witness said he heard that he was arrested and he's not sure whether he was going to DPSC or wherever, but he knew that the deceased used to got to DPSC.

MR RICHARD: Well what I want to confirm, because there often seems to be misunderstanding, is that he doesn't know where the witness was arrested.

ADV SANDI: Yes, that's the way I understand him. You have asked him if he knew that the deceased had been arrested, then he says yes, I heard that he was arrested but where he was going and how he was arrested I do not know. And then you asked him does he know where the deceased was arrested, where? He has not answered that. But I would express the same sentiment as my colleague, I'm not sure about the relevance of that question.

MR RICHARD: The relevance is Mr Dube some time ago gave evidence that he had information that this arrest took place at the offices of the Detainees Parents Support Committee in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Well this witness has said he doesn't know ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: This witness has said he doesn't know if he was going to or not, he often went there.

You don't know where he was arrested, do you?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not certain.

MR RICHARD: Do you know of any arrest with a firearm and a handgrenade?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat your question.

MR RICHARD: Do you know of any arrest of the deceased with a firearm and a handgrenade?

MR MAKHUBU: What I'll explain to you is that his arrest, yes, he did have such in his possession. As to whether he had them at that time when he was being arrested, that much I don't know but I know that they were seen. As to whether he had them in his possession at that particular point in time, I don't know. I know they were confiscated subsequently.

MR RICHARD: Who confiscated them?

MR MAKHUBU: The police did.

MR RICHARD: When did the police confiscate them?

MR MAKHUBU: There is one thing I would like to explain and elaborate on, that as soon as his arrest I never saw him thereafter. As to when they confiscated them, that much I don't know.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard.

When did you become aware that he had been arrested with weapons, with a firearm or a handgrenade?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he doesn't know if they were. "I don't know if he had them in his possession, they were confiscated subsequently."

ADV SANDI: When did you become aware that they had been confiscated from him?

MR MAKHUBU: When I met him, that's when I gathered that.

ADV SANDI: And that was before he disappeared?

MR MAKHUBU: After he disappearance.

DR TSOTSI: Who told you that? How did you know that the arms were confiscated by the police, how did you get to know that?

MR MAKHUBU: At the time when we met together with the commander, they were left outside talking and I was inside doing a few calls and when I got back to join them that's when the commander told me that he had just said they'd confiscated the arms. Now I won't say as to when they confiscated them, whether at that time when they were arresting him or later, that much I don't know.

MR RICHARD: Were you present when Mr Dube gave evidence yesterday and today?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I was present.

MR RICHARD: Did you hear the person who was once your commander say that the arrest in October 1987 was when the police arrested him with a firearm and a handgrenade?

MR MAKHUBU: The fact that I heard that does not mean that I must commit myself to his statement.

MR RICHARD: So on your version his statement is wrong and cannot be true?

MR MAKHUBU: I will be wrong by so saying because I am the one who is saying I am not sure, I don't know exactly.

MR RICHARD: Because you've just said that it was only on the evening of the 24th of January 1988, the night he was shot, that you learnt through your commander that it was then that the deceased allegedly told Dube that the firearms had been confiscated from him. That's your evidence.

MR MAKHUBU: I don't see any problem there.

MR RICHARD: I believe I don't need to argue with the witness over questions. Now were you aware of any other arrests in and during the period October 1987 to January the 24th 1988, of the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat that question.

MR RICHARD: Are you aware of any arrests of the deceased other than the 12 October event, between the period October '87 to 24 January '88?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure about the other arrests except the one when I was working with him.

MR RICHARD: And which one was that, for the sake of clarity?

MR MAKHUBU: He was arrested in October when I was working with him.

MR RICHARD: Can you explain to us what the duties of a cell member were to the cell?

MR MAKHUBU: Sicelo was responsible for establishing bases, Sipho Tshabalala was my deputy, he was a commissar, Sibongiseni was the one who kept the material or our material ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: Please, Sir, the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) material?

MR MAKHUBU: Sibongiseni.

ADV SANDI: Sibongiseni, who is that?

MR MAKHUBU: Wiseman, number 4 applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR MAKHUBU: Sibongiseni.

ADV SANDI: What materials were these?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't think it's related to amnesty.

MR RICHARD: Now it was the 4th applicant's responsibility to take care of equipment, is that your answer, your statement?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, he's the one.

MR RICHARD: Now if equipment was going to be needed and needed to be stored, who would be given it? I put it to you from your answer that it's the 4th applicant.

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is true.

MR RICHARD: So if Mr Dube wanted a weapon kept for him for his further use at a future point in time, he would have given it to Mr Zungu?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is true.

MR RICHARD: And not to the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: He could have given it to him as well, it did not mean that he wouldn't have.

MR RICHARD: Was it usual for each member of a cell to have weapons?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, it was usual.

MR RICHARD: Now other than the duty to locate places of hiding, what other duties was the deceased obliged to live up to?

MR MAKHUBU: I responded to that question a long time ago, that there is nothing else that he did except for that.

MR RICHARD: There were no other duties and responsibilities, he wasn't obliged to do anything else besides find hideaways? If that's your answer say yes, or if you want to add to that add.

MR MAKHUBU: I have no addition to that.

DR TSOTSI: So as a commander were you not entitled to order, do this and that?

MR MAKHUBU: I did have that right.

MR RICHARD: Did you give him any other directions, orders?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not have specifics on that.

MR RICHARD: I don't understand that answer, did you give him any other orders or directions or regulations to follow?

MR MAKHUBU: I have already mentioned before that there is nothing else that I ordered him to do.

MR RICHARD: So that means this whole story that we've heard yesterday about him being obliged to report to you each and every movement, where he went, what he was going to do, is not true?

ADV SANDI: I thought that was generally an obligation for everyone to say where he is going to.

MR RICHARD: I have asked very specific questions, what other obligations rested on the deceased, were there any, were there any other instructions given, the answer has been no.

MR KOOPEDI: I believe I heard ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But there are all sorts of other instructions. You've been asking for specific things. I have no doubt there were instructions not to mention the names of other members of the cell to outsiders and things of that nature. And this was, as I understood it, a general instruction so that they can get in touch with you if they need you, you must tell them where you're going.

MR RICHARD: Was that an instruction that was given?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question? Was there a general instruction amongst the members of the cell that they ought to tell others where they were going if they were going away so that they could be, contact could be made with them?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that was indeed the case.

MR RICHARD: Prior to October 1987, did Mr Dube raise concerns with you regarding the deceased's behaviour?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat the question.

MR RICHARD: Prior to October 1987, did Mr Dube talk to about any worries, concerns that he had about the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: He once asked me if I was sure of the deceased, if I trust him and when I questioned him why, he said there were some things that were happening but he was going to explain to me later. And I only received an explanation when the deceased had disappeared.

MR RICHARD: When the deceased had disappeared, what were the explanations you received? What were the explanations?

MR MAKHUBU: He explained that he had a problem that there was a time when he observed Sicelo surveilling him and that made him feel uncomfortable and he didn't know what was going on, and his disappearance left him with question marks.

MR RICHARD: Did you raise this, or did your commander raise this with any other cell members?

MR MAKHUBU: He mean during his disappearance?

MR RICHARD: Yes, the concerns, the worries.

MR MAKHUBU: We discussed it.

MR RICHARD: Now you've heard the evidence of Mr Dube, he says he gave instructions that enquiries should be made as to where the deceased was and what he was doing, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I didn't quite get the question, there seems to be a problem with the headset.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR RICHARD: Did your commander, Mr Dube, give you instructions to make enquiries and to investigate where the deceased was and what he was doing?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, he did say that we should attempt to find where he was.

MR RICHARD: When did he give that instruction?

MR MAKHUBU: When we met to discuss this question, because I am the one who had summoned him and informed that Sicelo had been gone, disappeared for two weeks and when we enquired from these other cell members they did not know where he was. And according to the rules if you are going to be away for more than a day you had to report and that was when he told us that we had to look for him, investigate his whereabouts.

MR RICHARD: So this was some two weeks after, or approximately two weeks after the date in October that he went missing, 1987? Do I understand you correctly?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: What did you do to find the deceased? What exactly did you do to find out what he was doing and where he was?

MR MAKHUBU: What I did, at that time I was no longer a full-time member of Sosco and I was not attending school full-tine, but Sipho used to go to other areas as an executive member of Sosco. I requested him to actually inform him in case he met him in these areas that he went to, to contact me and to come to me and report to me what was going on in his life.

MR RICHARD: What was the relationship between Sipho and the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: I can say they were friends, they were close friends more than they were comrades.

MR RICHARD: Now by this stage you had visited the Dhlomo household, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: Do you refer to the period when he disappeared?

MR RICHARD: By the time that the deceased some two three weeks after the October arrest had so to speak disappeared according to your version, had you already visited the Dhlomo household?

CHAIRPERSON: He has told us that he visited it before October.

MR RICHARD: Now did you go to the Dhlomo household and ask them where their son is?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not.

MR RICHARD: Did Sipho say that he had gone there?

MR MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

MR RICHARD: And I've already put it to you and I'm going to put it to you a second time to make sure that you stand by your answer, you say it is incorrect that you went to the Detainees Parents Support Committee's offices at that time and spoke to the deceased, after the disappearance.

MR MAKHUBU: I did not say that, you said it to me.

MR RICHARD: Well what did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I want you to clarify this. Do you say you did not deny going to the displaced parents offices in October, November, December?

MR MAKHUBU: I repeat, the question was: "Have you been to the DPSC?" and I said yes, and you asked me if I know where it is and I said yes, and you asked you if I've ever been there and I said yes, and you asked me if during October or November 1987 did I go there to speak to Sicelo and I said no.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not go there in October/November 1987, October/November/December? You did not ...(indistinct)

MR MAKHUBU: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were never ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: And you went on to say you were never there during that period, that if a witness came and said you had been there the witness would be lying, is that what you told us?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you deny that you were ever at this place in the months October, November or December 1987, the DPSC offices in Khotso House? Is that clear?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I still maintain that.

MR RICHARD: Very well, but didn't you think that was a logical place to go and look for the deceased?

MR MAKHUBU: My approach at that had changed because I did not want to associate or to go and frequent places where I knew that the police may be.

MR RICHARD: Did you send Sipho or suggest to Sipho that he should go and look there, or phone there anonymously?

MR MAKHUBU: As I mentioned before, I did not do anything of that, I just asked Sipho to look for him. I was not specific as to where he should look for him. But because he was in the Sosco leadership I thought that they might meet in their meetings and he would report back to me whether he had found him or not, but I did not ask him specifically to look at those areas.

MR RICHARD: So you attached no great urgency to this search and I don't hear that any great effort was made to find the deceased, is that correct, is my inference correct?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't know what you mean. What I can say is that I did not go out running looking for him because I was not aware of where to look for him in the first place.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't tell Sipho to go out running either, you just if he meets him at the meetings of the Soweto Student's he must give him a message to come and see you, is that so?

MR MAKHUBU: That is true.

MR RICHARD: Do you think a thorough search was made for Sicelo?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not think that we looked for him thoroughly.

MR RICHARD: And if I put it to you that he was in fact easily found if people made an effort, would you disagree with me?

MR MAKHUBU: I would not dispute that. I also had my own duties to take care of and I would not have gone running after somebody who knew very well that he had to report.

CHAIRPERSON: This reporting, how often did you used to meet?

MR MAKHUBU: We did not meet regularly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how often? You say he knew he had to report, how often would you expect him to report?

MR MAKHUBU: That did not mean that he had to report personally, he could have left a message.

CHAIRPERSON: How often would you expect him to do that?

MR MAKHUBU: As often as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: And where would he report or leave a message.

MR MAKHUBU: He knew where my base was.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it?

MR MAKHUBU: At Emdeni.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he do this regularly before he disappeared?

MR MAKHUBU: All of them did report regularly.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say Sicelo reported regularly and then suddenly from October onwards there was this complete cut-out, was that the position?

DR TSOTSI: Did you say that members of the unit ...(intervention)

MR MAKHUBU: That is what I meant.

DR TSOTSI: Did you say members had to meet, had to report if they were away for more than one day? Did I hear you say that in your evidence, that if ever a member of your unit was going to be away some place for more than one day, he had to report?

MR MAKHUBU: What I'm explaining or what I said was, if a member was aware that he would be away for more than a day he would have to report. I did not say that they should meet, but that particular person would have to inform me that they would be absent.

DR TSOTSI: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Did you make any effort to find out whether the deceased might or might not have been in custody at that time?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I did not.

MR RICHARD: Did it occur to you that it might have been a possibility?

MR MAKHUBU: Nothing was impossible at the time.

MR RICHARD: Right, let's go to the afternoon and day of the 24th of January. You say on that Sunday morning the deceased came to your house.

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now was your house your base?

MR MAKHUBU: No, it was not.

MR RICHARD: Where was your base?

MR MAKHUBU: It is a distance from my home, but I left a message at the base that I was going home.

MR RICHARD: Now do you know who Joe is?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Do you know a house in Naledi?

MR MAKHUBU: No.

MR RICHARD: Have you ever been to a house occupied by a person called Joe?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I've never been there.

MR RICHARD: Now when Mr Dube gave evidence yesterday and he said there was a house in Naledi run by a man called Joe at which a base was situated, you know nothing about that?

MR MAKHUBU: It could have been his base, not mine.

MR RICHARD: Yesterday I produced a statement by one of your co-applicants, Sipho Tshabalala, which was handed in as Exhibit A, did you get a copy and have you seen it?

MR MAKHUBU: I saw it.

MR RICHARD: So you've read it?

MR MAKHUBU: I just perused it.

MR RICHARD: What is your comment, does it represent what happened on the 24th of January?

MR MAKHUBU: I can only respond if you ask me with regards to specific issues in the statement.

MR RICHARD: Because in that statement, I'll go through it point by point if that's what is wanted, Mr Tshabalala says

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

Do you have any comment on that first paragraph?

MR MAKHUBU: Can I speak to my lawyer before I respond to that question?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you've had ample opportunity, your lawyer had this before he called you to give evidence.

MR MAKHUBU: The fact that I have been with the attorney does not mean that I should be denied the right to speak to him if I want to consult.

CHAIRPERSON: You are being cross-examined now, you do not have a right to consult with your attorney during the middle of questioning. Will you please answer the question.

MR MAKHUBU: To respond to that question, briefly that statement is untrue.

MR RICHARD: Why would ...(intervention)

MR MAKHUBU: I know about that statement.

MR RICHARD: What do you know about this statement?

MR MAKHUBU: If you are not aware I can just inform you that my signature appears on that statement.

MR RICHARD: Is your signature the second signature on the second page of the document? There's a Tshabalala and a signature underneath that, is that your signature?

MR MAKHUBU: That is my signature.

MR RICHARD: How come were you there when the statement was given, how did you get to be present?

MR MAKHUBU: On that day Sicelo had been with me in the morning and there were people who saw me with him, but I do not remember who these people were. On that day Sipho had been with him and there are people who were witness to this, and to actually stamp out all trace that would have led us, let the trace to us, that is why we wrote this statement.

MR RICHARD: Now when you wrote this statement where did you go to write this statement?

MR MAKHUBU: We went to an attorney, but I'm not sure where.

MR RICHARD: If I told you that attorney was in Commissioner Street in Johannesburg, would that help you remember?

MR MAKHUBU: It would not because I do not remember where it was.

MR RICHARD: Now who decided to go to the attorney?

MR MAKHUBU: I discussed it with Sipho and I saw it as an option that we could use so that we would not be the people suspected.

MR RICHARD: Now why did you choose that particular attorney to go to?

MR MAKHUBU: There is no specific reason, but I knew that whatever may come after writing the statement may not implicate us, but there was nothing specific or special about the attorney.

MR RICHARD: Did you go to that attorney to obtain legal advice on what might be a potential murder charge against you?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't remember us requesting legal advice.

MR RICHARD: So that means you did not give the statement to the attorney so as to enable him to advise you?

MR MAKHUBU: When we gave the statement we were not seeking legal advice because at that time we were working underground and if I needed such advice it would have meant that I would have to go to Court and attend trials, and that is what I was not going to do.

MR RICHARD: Now on what basis did you choose this particular attorney's office to go and give a statement to? What were your reasons for going to that office?

MR MAKHUBU: What I can say is that I was not familiar with the offices so there was nothing specific, there was nothing specific or special about choosing that particular office.

MR RICHARD: Did anyone advise you to go to that office?

MR MAKHUBU: I have already mentioned this before ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Then I should understand that out of all the lawyers in Johannesburg, this was a completely random choice, that there was no reason at all why you went to this firm of attorneys.

MR KOOPEDI: The witness has said that he didn't know anything about lawyers in town, only his friend Sipho did and they went there because Sipho said they should go there.

ADV SANDI: Yes but Mr Richard, I understand you want to find out from the witness whose idea was it that they should go to this particular attorney, not so?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Who said suggested that Mr Makhubu? Who suggested that you should go to this particular attorney?

MR MAKHUBU: We decided, that is myself and Sipho, that we should go to that particular attorney because he's the one who actually recommended him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sipho recommended him?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Did Sipho tell you why you should go to that particular attorney?

MR MAKHUBU: If I'm not mistaken I think it is because he was used to him, he knew him.

MR RICHARD: Were you aware that the deceased had consulted with that firm on a good number of occasions in the past, had reported various other incidents to him?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I was not.

MR RICHARD: And were you aware that that firm of attorneys in fact wrote letters to the doctors performing the post-mortem, to assist in the investigation of the death?

MR MAKHUBU: I was not aware of that.

MR RICHARD: Now what I do hear you saying now was that you decided to go and give this attorney a statement that was incorrect and did not represent the true facts of the matter, is that correct?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is so.

MR RICHARD: Why would you not want this attorney to know the true facts of the matter?

MR MAKHUBU: He was not a member of the underground structure and therefore there was no need to inform him of what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you were just trying to safeguard your name in case anybody suspected you? You nodded your head, does that mean yes?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I was trying to protect myself in case I was suspected.

MR RICHARD: So that means you knew that this firm of attorneys were investigating the death of the deceased and you did not want them to find out the truth, is that not correct?

MR MAKHUBU: No, that is not correct.

MR RICHARD: Well then why didn't you tell them the truth?

MR MAKHUBU: Why would I have had to tell them the truth about my underground activities?

MR RICHARD: Very well. Did you know that the attorney was investigating the circumstances and the death of the late Sicelo Dhlomo?

CHAIRPERSON: Was he on that occasion?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he start the investigation?

MR RICHARD: The day afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: The 26th?

MR RICHARD: Correct. The statement was taken on the 28th, which is three days later.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any way that you could have known that this attorney had been investigating from the 26th?

MR RICHARD: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct). Were you in touch with the deceased's family, Sicelo Dhlomo's family?

MR MAKHUBU: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in touch with Sicelo Dhlomo's family immediately after his death?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, I met with them.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR MAKHUBU: Before his burial.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR MAKHUBU: I will not be able to put a date but I know that I used to see them even before the funeral.

MR RICHARD: I beg your pardon, I cannot hear the interpreter?

INTERPRETER: He said he cannot put a specific date on when he saw them, but he ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Sorry, ...(indistinct) improves, I still can't hear the interpreter.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear anything from me?

MR RICHARD: I have silence on this.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now?

MR RICHARD: It's back on line, it's very loud now. What was the witness' answer?

INTERPRETER: He said he cannot put a specific date on when he saw the family, but he did see them before the funeral.

MR RICHARD: Well I have an original of a letter signed by the firm of attorneys, dated 26 January 1988, so that establishes that within one day the investigations had commenced and in fact Doctor Gluckman was being instructed on what was to happen. On the 27th of January the post-mortem was performed, did you know any of this?

MR MAKHUBU: No, I was not aware.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard, this letter you've just referred to, you're not handing it in as an exhibit?

MR RICHARD: I shall. I don't have copies at this point. It will be Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: It's obvious from the beginning that this letter was untrue, wasn't it, Mr Richard?

MR MAKHUBU: The reason that we need to discover is why it was untrue.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) patently so, wasn't it?

MR RICHARD: There is information in the document that I would like to examine the witness on, why does he refer to somebody specifically by the name of Joe who is an identifiable person referred to by the first applicant, whose decision was it to put that name in?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: No, I'm just explaining ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's not get on about letters written by attorneys to doctors performing post-mortems which I think are totally irrelevant to this inquiry.

MR RICHARD: As the Chairperson pleases.

Right, the next thing is if you have a look at the first paragraph of your, of Exhibit A, who decided to use that information: a house in Naledi, Clive Makhubu, Joe, why mention a name like Joe? Who is George?

MR MAKHUBU: There is no such person called Joe.

CHAIRPERSON: And George?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, George, who is George?

MR MAKHUBU: There is no such person.

MR RICHARD: Is it pure coincidence that yesterday we did establish that there was a person in Naledi called Joe? Is that merely ...(indistinct)

MR MAKHUBU: I do not know Joe, George, sorry.

MR RICHARD: Now before you went to the attorney with Sipho, had you worked out what you were going to tell him?

MR MAKHUBU: We did discuss just what lies we were going to tell him.

MR RICHARD: Now the money ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, if you've moving onto another issue, can I just make one small follow-up on this?

So the two of you went to see this attorney, you were sitting there, you were telling him to write this statement, whose handwriting is this?

MR MAKHUBU: I'm not sure whose it is, but it is not mine. Maybe it is Sipho's or somebody else's, but it is not my handwriting.

ADV SANDI: Is it no the attorney's handwriting?

MR MAKHUBU: It is possible, but I'm not sure. What I know is it is not mine.

ADV SANDI: Just to get a clear picture as to how this statement was produced. Yourself and Sipho were sitting there, you were talking to this attorney and he was writing?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not remember quite well how it happened, but I know that the statement was written.

ADV SANDI: At what stage did you sign the statement? You just said your signature appears there.

MR MAKHUBU: I signed it after it had been written.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It's been put to you time and again this attorney, was the person who took it down an attorney?

MR RICHARD: Yes, the gentleman still practices in Johannesburg.

ADV SANDI: Was it not the assistant of the attorney, a clerk or something?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not asking about the firm, I'm asking the person himself who wrote it down, was that an attorney or was he an employee in the firm?

MR RICHARD: I would have to take specific instructions by contacting the person who signed the letter. That person is known to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: I don't know who ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) might well have been a clerk or one of the secretaries wrote the thing down.

MR RICHARD: When you spoke to the person at the attorney's office, did you meet a man or a woman?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: Right, let's go back to the document itself. At paragraph 2 you said quite correctly that he had with him a diary, a radio cassette and a sum of R830, now why do you mention the sum of R830?

MR MAKHUBU: I think it would be better if you would direct your question to Sipho.

MR RICHARD: You signed the statement.

MR MAKHUBU: I repeat I signed for something that was not true.

MR RICHARD: Now if I say to you that that Saturday the deceased had been given over R1 000, some R1 200 - I'll leave the point. However if I understand your answers you say that the entire contents of this statement is untrue and no reliance should be put on it, you gave it to mislead people so as not to have the fingers pointed at you, is that your answer to this document?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, that is the truth.

DR TSOTSI: Did you pay this attorney?

MR MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

DR TSOTSI: Did you pay the attorney who wrote this statement for you?

MR MAKHUBU: No, we did not.

MR RICHARD: Did you remember making this statement until I produced it yesterday?

MR MAKHUBU: I had forgotten about it.

MR RICHARD: Now we then go to what turns to be your house in Emdeni, not to be Joe's house in Naledi. At what time about did the deceased arrive back that afternoon? - you and Mr Dube were sitting there.

MR MAKHUBU: He returned just before dusk.

MR RICHARD: Just before dusk. Now what was his first statement when he walked in, did he say anything to anyone?

MR MAKHUBU: He found us outside and he greeted us.

MR RICHARD: Was he suspicious or was he friendly, was he fearful? What was his attitude?

MR MAKHUBU: From what I observed - when I met him in the morning he was fine, but when he returned in the afternoon and found me sitting with Dube he didn't seem comfortable.

MR RICHARD: Did he know that Mr Dube was going to be there?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not inform him.

MR RICHARD: Right, you heard the evidence of Mr Dube, do you agree with his sequence of events in the statement that you referred to?

MR MAKHUBU: If you can refer me to the sequence you are actually referring to.

MR RICHARD: Did you hear Mr Dube's evidence yesterday when he gave a sequence of events and an order of events about how the murder happened? Do you agree with what he said yesterday?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not want to commit myself to a response before I hear what is it exactly that you are asking me about.

MR RICHARD: I've asked a very simple question ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but my recollection of Mr Dube's evidence is that it varied from time to time and I can understand someone saying I do not want to commit myself until you tell me which points.

MR RICHARD: Now I return back to the statement sworn under oath, page 10, do you agree with the sequence of events in that version? Which version do you stick to?

MR MAKHUBU: I think you should ask me specific questions on that statement because I cannot say that I agree or disagree with the statement in its entirety.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that statement contradicts his evidence completely as you put to him, where he says

"I took the transmitter and left him. I immediately rushed to the three cell members in Emdeni."

Can you just put the short version that you want him to comment on?

MR RICHARD: Now on that one, Chairperson, I don't have a version because none of the people that instruct me were present and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, but which of Mr Dube's versions do you want him to comment on?

MR RICHARD: I'll approach it this way.

At what time did the deceased get shot? At what time did you shoot him about?

MR MAKHUBU: It was around nine, but I did not check the time at that point when I shot him.

MR RICHARD: Now you say that you met up with the deceased at around dusk, which I would say is approximately 7 p.m., is that within your memory?

MR MAKHUBU: I would not dispute it.

MR RICHARD: So there is a two hour period between seven and nine. When you indicate about 9 o'clock, how far out could you reasonably be, a quarter of an hour, half an hour?

INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat the question.

MR RICHARD: When you give us the time 9 p.m., how approximate is that, is that within half an hour, within 10 minutes?

MR MAKHUBU: I did say that I was not sure of the time because I did not check the time at that point.

MR RICHARD: But it was more than one hour after he arrived at about seven?

MR MAKHUBU: I have referred you to estimated times but ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Right, let's take it this way, how long

were you at the tree before you shot him?

MR MAKHUBU: A minute was more than enough. It must have been less than a minute.

MR RICHARD: Now you went from near the school to the tree, now how long did it take to walk from near the school to the tree?

MR MAKHUBU: From my home to that place it takes about 35 or 40 minutes to walk there, but because I had to go and fetch Sibongiseni and the other person it meant that I took longer, so I cannot really estimate just how much time I took on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Explain how you had to go and fetch them, where did you have to go and fetch them from?

MR MAKHUBU: I had told them to wait for me at their homes.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you go from your home to their homes, or did you go from the school to their homes?

MR MAKHUBU: I left my house, there were three of us, Dube, the deceased and myself and then I left them at the school and I went further to pick the other two and returned with them and thereafter we all went to that spot.

CHAIRPERSON: So Dube and the deceased waited at the school while you went and fetched the others?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Now if I understand it correctly for you to walk from the school to their houses, to each of their houses, would have taken each way about 35 minutes? Please correct me, I may have misunderstood it.

MR MAKHUBU: What I was trying to explain was this, you asked me a question how far or how long it would take from my home to that spot, so I was trying to explain that I left my home and went to the school and then had to go to these other two houses and therefore it took longer. That is why I'm not in a position to estimate ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well can we try doing it bit by bit. How long would it take you to get from your house to the school?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: How long would that take, roughly?

MR MAKHUBU: About 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then from the school to the other two houses, how long would that take?

MR MAKHUBU: They stay at different places. I can say that it took from about 15 minutes to go from the school to Sipho's home.

CHAIRPERSON: And the from Sipho's to Precious Wiseman's?

MR MAKHUBU: From Sipho's home to Precious' home would take about 15 minutes or more.

CHAIRPERSON: And then from Precious' home back to the school?

MR MAKHUBU: I would say about 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: 15, 1 5?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, somewhere there.

CHAIRPERSON: And going back to your original time, it would then take about 20 minutes from the school to the tree?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes, we can say that, 20 minutes or more.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's more than an hour and twenty minutes this would have taken you? ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: And the final period, is how long were the deceased, you and Mr Dube at your house, about? - to add on.

MR MAKHUBU: We did not stay for long because when I emerged from the house this device had been found and from then we requested him to go inside and then we talked between the two of us and we did not take more than two minutes, and from then we left my home. We did not spend a lot time.

MR RICHARD: So after you learnt that Mr Dube had found this device you and he discussed it for about two minutes and then left, is that correct?

MR MAKHUBU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And had you already arranged to meet Sipho and Precious or did you go and telephone them before you left?

MR MAKHUBU: I had already telephoned them because I had already been given that instruction to call them when I emerged from the house.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought the first instruction was to phone them and tell them to stand by?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't think we differ.

CHAIRPERSON: You went out and you saw them ....(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: You went out - after you had phoned them and told them to stand by, you went out, you saw the broken device and you sent the deceased inside and you and Dube spoke about it and you decided that you would have to eradicate him, exterminate him. Did you phone the others again or did you just go to their houses and collect them?

MR MAKHUBU: I did not telephone them again.

CHAIRPERSON: They were standing by, you already arranged for them to stand by at their houses and you just went and fetched them. Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Where did you call them from, where was this telephone?

MR MAKHUBU: It was at my home.

ADV SANDI: Why did you have to go and fetch them, could they not just come over and join you?

MR MAKHUBU: There was no problem with fetching them because we had decided that they should be on stand-by and we would come to their homes and pick them up. That was the arrangement.

ADV SANDI: Did you pick them up by car or were you just walking?

MR MAKHUBU: I was on foot.

MR RICHARD: Right, so while you were busy phoning the other two, we now have a situation that inside there is Mr Dube and the deceased, how long were they together for?

CHAIRPERSON: So they were outside?

MR RICHARD: Outside.

How long were they together while you were busy on the telephone?

MR MAKHUBU: I do not want to commit myself because when I made those telephone calls it was not just a matter of telling them to be on stand-by, we did talk a bit because we were friends, so I cannot really put a time-frame to it.

MR RICHARD: Now you weren't present while Mr Dube was talking to the deceased, you were on the telephone talking to your friends and telling them to be on stand-by.

MR MAKHUBU: That is the whole truth.

MR RICHARD: Now it's purely for the purposes of constructing the time-period, could the conversations between you and your two friends have taken more than 10 minutes or less than 10 minutes? They were short conversations.

MR MAKHUBU: Maybe less than that.

MR RICHARD: So then we look at the next from the time that the deceased arrived at your house to the time that you went to telephone your two comrades, again was that half an hour or 10 minutes, estimate?

MR MAKHUBU: I don't quite follow you.

MR RICHARD: The deceased arrived at your house at around sunset which is approximately dusk, 7 p.m., quarter past seven, in January. Now from the time that he arrived till the time you went to make the phone calls, how much time elapsed, how much time passed?

MR MAKHUBU: ...(no English translation)

MR RICHARD: For the purposes of the proposition I'm going to put to you next, was it more than 10 minutes or more than 5 minutes? - I don't mind which.

MR MAKHUBU: It was not a long time because after we had greeted each other the commander said I should go and phone these two to be on stand-by so that we will pick them up on our way, and that is when I went into the house to make those calls.

MR RICHARD: And now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. As soon as he greeted them, before he said anything he told you to go, the commander told you to go and phone the two others so you could pick them up on the way to somewhere, is that the position?

MR MAKHUBU: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Now the next question is, from the time that you saw the deceased arrive at your house to the time of his death, to the time of the shot, there might be a distinction between the two, did he eat anything?

MR MAKHUBU: I would be telling a lie if I said he ate something.

MR RICHARD: Now you agree on that reconstruction of the time-period, well over an hour passed from the time that he arrived at your house to the time that he was shot. You've listed more than an hour in the various 5 minute, 10 minute, quarter of an hour periods. Do you agree with that proposition?

MR MAKHUBU: If you refer from the point that he arrived at my home and we left for the school and I went to collect these other two and thereafter we all went to the spot, yes I would not disagree with you.

MR RICHARD: You would not disagree with me. Now if I tell you that between the time of his death, which I emphasised is different or not necessarily concurrent with the time that he was shot, to the time that he had his last food to eat, no more than an hour could have passed, what would be your comment?

MR MAKHUBU: I would not make a comment because when I was with him he did not eat anything.

MR RICHARD: But the inference to be drawn from the fact that he ate within an hour of dying is that the last reconstruction of events that we've just been through is also incorrect.

MR MAKHUBU: What I can is that maybe what you are saying is not true.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) see him eat anything while he was in your car from 7 o'clock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said he didn't eat anything and he's now challenging your medical reliance entirely figure of one hour, he says maybe that is not correct.

MR RICHARD: I apologise. I see that the time is now twenty nine minutes past ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR KOOPEDI: I will be here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS