CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, we're about to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Monday the 27th of September 1999, it is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee, held at the JISS Centre, Johannesburg. The Panel presiding is myself, Denzil Potgieter, together with me Advocates de Jager and Bosman.
We will be starting off with the amnesty applications of J B Makhanye and J H Makhanye. The respective reference numbers are AM3834/96 and 3835/96. I'm going to ask the legal representatives to put themselves on record. First we start with you, Mr Motloung.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. For the applicants, my name is Ike Motloung from the firm, Makum(?) and Associates in Germiston. I'll be representing both applicants, Joseph Makhanye and Jabulani Makhanye. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motloung. And for the victims?
MR NYAWUZA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am Oupa Patrick Nyawuza, from the firm O P Nyawuza Attorneys in Johannesburg. I'll be representing Mr Simon Manana, the father of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: My name is Ms Lockhat and I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr Motloung, I assume that we will start off with the application of Mr Joseph Makhanye.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have discussed the matter with the Evidence Leader and we are posing that for convenience, we start with Jabulani Makhanye.
CHAIRPERSON: That's in order. So we'll start off with Mr Jabulani Makhanye. Yes, do you want your client to be sworn in?
MR MOTLOUNG: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you stand up please.
JABULANI H MAKHANYE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Mr Motloung, is there anything that you wanted to place on record, or do you want to present the evidence of your client?
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, could I just confirm that you have before you two affidavits, one being essentially a founding affidavit and the other being a confirmatory affidavit. The founding affidavit would be in the name of Jabulani H Makhanye and the confirmatory would be by his brother, Joseph Makhanye.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, have you got the same volume as we've got?
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr de Jager. They're not part of the bundle, I've just made them available this morning.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, I see.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in that event we will mark the affidavit of Mr Jabulani Makhanye, as Exhibit A.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And the other one of Mr Joseph Makhanye, as Exhibit B.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. And Mr Chairman, and the Learned Commissioners will realise that the affidavits have not been attested to, I propose to read the contents thereof into the record and my clients can simply confirm them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that will be in order if they confirm it under oath.
EXAMINATION BY MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In the amnesty application held at JISS Centre, Johannesburg, the application by Joseph Makhanye and Jabulani Makhanye, the affidavit by Jabulani Makhanye, I read it into the record
"I, the undersigned, Jabulani Makhanye, do hereby swear under oath and say the following
(1) I am the applicant in the matter above and the contents herein deposed to are within my personal knowledge, unless the context otherwise indicates, are to the best of my belief both true and correct.
(2) I hereby make an application for amnesty regarding the killing of one, Ernest Mfanayeto Manana, on the 4th day of May 1990, at the "Easy by Night Tavern" in Sivukile township, Morgenzon.
(3) Myself, together with a group of others ..."
I realise, Mr Chairman, there's an "s" missing, could I ask that the documents be deemed so amended.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
"(3) Myself, together with a group of others, including my brother, Joseph Makhanye, killed the above-named, Mr Manana, by inter alia stabbing him.
(4) When I so participated in the killing of Mr Manana, I did so because he did not want to cooperate with the community of Sivukile township regarding their political programmes. In particular, he was defiant against us regarding a boycott of white owned businesses in Morgenzon, and when he was confronted by myself on his lack of co-operation, which included the refusal to be searched at the tavern, he tried to shoot me, but missed and shot one of my comrades by the name, Nlangamandla.
(5) The comrades who were in the tavern then responded by attacking him and killed him. I was part of the group that attacked him. I grabbed his hand in order to disarm him, and my brother Joseph B Makhanye is one of the people who stabbed Mr Manana in the process."
Mr Chairman, can I then ask my client to confirm if the contents are correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.
MR MAKHANYE: I do concur with what has been read, the statement that has been read.
You see, what happened in Morgenzon ...(intervention)
MR MOTLOUNG: Mr Makhanye, before you carry on. Mr Chairman and the learned Commissioners, we then propose to amplify some of the aspects covered in the affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MOTLOUNG: Mr Makhanye, can you tell this Honourable Committee as to where this tavern is actually situated, whether it's in fact in the township or in the town, in Morgenzon.
MR MAKHANYE: The tavern is situated in the township, Sivukile township, that is.
MR MOTLOUNG: And why did you go to this tavern on this particular day, the 4th day of May 1990?
MR MAKHANYE: On the 4th of May 1990, I went to the tavern and on arrival I ordered a soft drink and I was in the company of other comrades.
MR MOTLOUNG: Okay. Do I understand you correctly that you went there to drink?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, you understand me quite well.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now the deceased, did you know him?
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, did you go to drink in the sense of drinking alcohol or ...? Because you ordered a soft drink.
MR MAKHANYE: You see I was having a soft drink but my other comrades were drinking beers, or liquor, alcohol.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now the deceased in this matter, did you know him?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I know him very well.
MR MOTLOUNG: Do you know what was his profession?
MR MAKHANYE: He was e policeman in Morgenzon.
MR MOTLOUNG: Can you briefly explain to this Committee as to what was the relationship between the community and members of the community who happened to be policemen.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I could briefly explain that. You see there was a consumer boycott that was on in Morgenzon and there were two major issues in regard to this consumer boycott and it was about the business people.
There was two doors there, or there were two doors, one for the white businessmen and - one for the whites and one for the blacks ...(intervention)
MR MOTLOUNG: When you say there were two doors there, do you mean where? Do you mean at these businesses or where?
MR MAKHANYE: I mean in the town of Morgenzon.
MR MOTLOUNG: Yes, but the two doors, at what particular place or places were these two doors in Morgenzon?
MR MAKHANYE: Sorry?
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, Mr Makhanye, were the businesses segregated? In other words, black people used one entrance into a shop and black people used anther entrance into a shop? Is that what happened there?
MR MAKHANYE: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was one of your problems?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And is that why you were having a consumer boycott?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: A consumer boycott of what were you having, or which businesses?
MR MAKHANYE: May you please explain the latter.
CHAIRPERSON: There was a consumer boycott, you've said that, we wanted to just save a bit of time ...(intervention)
MR MOTLOUNG: What businesses were you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ... which businesses were you not buying from?
MR MAKHANYE: The white businesses.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Motloung, carry on.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now the deceased, you said he was a policeman, were policemen allowed to stay in the Sivukile township?
MR MAKHANYE: There was about two months that the police had left the township to the urban areas, or in town.
MR MOTLOUNG: And why did they leave the township?
MR MAKHANYE: The community deemed it fit that the police should be not part of them because they were not co-operative.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now talking about the deceased in particular, is he one of those policemen who left this township?
MR MAKHANYE: The late resided in the township. And this is how it happened. He was one of the people who spoke to me, that he will be co-operative with the comrades, he will never bear living in town because he was brought up in the township.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the deceased a municipal policeman, not a South African policeman?
MR MAKHANYE: Sorry?
CHAIRPERSON: The deceased, was he a municipal policeman?
MR MAKHANYE: ...(no English interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, Mr Makhanye, are you listening to what I'm saying or are you listening to what the interpreter is saying? What do you hear on your headphones?
MR MAKHANYE: Nothing. I heard nothing.
CHAIRPERSON: No, then Mr Motloung you must please assist him. Alright the technician will get him onto the right channel.
CHAIRPERSON: Just listen if you can now hear the translation. Do you hear the interpreter speaking?
MR MAKHANYE: Very well, I hear now.
CHAIRPERSON: That's fine. Yes, so was the deceased a municipal policeman or what?
MR MAKHANYE: I knew him to be SAP, because he was always in the SAP uniform.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now the deceased, did you people then ultimately allow him to continue staying in the township?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, he was allowed to continue living with us in the community, as a person who had earlier on indicated that he'll be very well co-operative as well as work hand-in-glove with us, because he was brought up in the township and would not bear living in town.
MR MOTLOUNG: Was he the only policeman who was allowed to stay?
MR MAKHANYE: No, there was another one, Mr Ghama, who was one other who said he will be co-operative with us.
MR MOTLOUNG: Was the relationship therefore, between the community and these two police officers a good one or not?
MR MAKHANYE: It was a wonderful relationship that we had with the two policemen as a community.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now gravitating towards the consumer boycott, by the time that the deceased was killed, the 4th day of May 1990, how long had the consumer boycott been going on? For how long had it been going on?
MR MAKHANYE: I think it would be approximately a month that it has been going on, or three weeks.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now in your own words, can you tell this Honourable Committee as to what happened that regards this matter, regarding that consumer boycott and so on.
MR MAKHANYE: On the 4th, during the day the late began now not to be co-operative with the comrades, went to town and bought from the very - no, he bought a cigarette and when he came back he found comrades standing at the entrance of the township, at the cross-road there and when the comrades requested to search him to ascertain if he had bought anything, and he drew out his gun instead and ran after the comrades. That was when the comrades fled into the township.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now this whole incident that you are describing, were you there yourself, Mr Makhanye, when this happened? Did you see it yourself or is this something that you were told about?
MR MAKHANYE: No I wasn't there, I was at work. I will come home on weekends. So that day was on Friday, the very day I will coming back home. And on arrival, around two, the comrades came and knocked at my door and informed me about the deeds of the late and I told the comrades that as he is part of our community we will meet with him on Saturday, he will be on duty I suppose and I will approach him as a person who had promised me earlier on that he will be very co-operative with the comrades. I think it's an ideal act for me to go and speak to him.
MR MOTLOUNG: And maybe as a matter of interest, why did the other comrades have to report to you? Did you assume any particular position in any structure?
MR MAKHANYE: You see what happened, amongst the comrades there was an organiser and a discipline. Now I would give out the instructions regarding discipline. Now I will also give directions as to which way to go should there be any problems arising. And I gave them the word that the following day I will definitely approach the man, the policeman that is, in relation to what they've just reported to me.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now was your position ...(indistinct) in any terms, were you called something? Do you have any particular term regarding your position?
MR MAKHANYE: No, they referred to me as comrade, or called me comrade.
MR MOTLOUNG: Now you intended to meet the deceased the following day ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motloung, before you step off that point because that is a relevant point, can't we just finish off this aspect.
Did you belong to any community structure or political organisation? You spoke about a disciplinary structure, or you had something to do with discipline. Can you explain that to us.
MR MAKHANYE: I was a member of SACO, Sivukile Action Community, under ANC. That particular structure, SACO, I formed part of it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us the acronym again, is it SACO, S-A-C-O?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes. S-A-C-O.
CHAIRPERSON: And what does it stand for again? Just repeat it.
MR MAKHANYE: Sivukile Action Committee Organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say it was affiliated to the ANC?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, it was an action committee that was in charge of the things that were happening in the township of Sivukile and report to the African National Congress, as an umbrella body.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you had to something with discipline, can you explain that?
MR MAKHANYE: You see, should there be a person for instance, whose conduct was not in order, then they would tell me and I will have to inform the Chairman of SACO and we will therefore discuss the matter as to how we deal with the particular person.
ADV DE JAGER: Who was the Chairman of SACO?
MR MAKHANYE: George Makhanye was the Chairman of SACO.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Makhanye, how old were you at the time?
INTERPRETER: How old were you at the time, what was your age?
MR MAKHANYE: I was 32 years old.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You also said that if there were problems you would give a direction. I assume you would indicate how the problem should be addressed, did I understand you correctly or what?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that another part of your duties within SACO?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Motloung?
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Now Mr Makhanye, can you come closer then to what happened on this day, the 4th of May 1990, at that tavern.
MR MAKHANYE: When we were seated right in the tavern, there were comrades and there was a particular programme that the comrades were presenting. As you may be aware that the police were no longer residing in the township, but in town, so they would make sure that people don't get into taverns armed. So there were comrades who were placed in strategic positions to search all the people who wanted to gain entry to the tavern, to see if they were armed or not. And it so happened that I was already in the tavern. I think I arrived there around eight, towards nine.
As we were no inside and seated in the tavern, it was discovered that the late got inside and he refused to be searched ...(intervention)
MR MOTLOUNG: Now Mr Makhanye, you are using the words "it was discovered", you mean that you did not see this yourself, when he went in and refused to be searched?
MR MAKHANYE: No, I did not see that because I was already inside and sitting down having my soft drink. Now one comrade approached me and said ...(indistinct) comrade by the name of Sifiso Mabusa, the name of the comrade that approached me.
And after he told me that I said "No, leave it to me, I will stand up and go and speak to him". And Mr Manana had been at the counter their and purchasing his beers and when they came back, he was sitting at the table right in front of ours. And as I was standing up to go towards him to talk to him, that I'd heard that during the day he refused to be checked or to be searched by the comrades and now again he is repeating the same act.
And when I got to him I found him to be standing up approaching the rest rooms. I excused myself and ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could you kindly repeat the last sentence. You went up to him to speak to him, when you got there what happened then?
MR MAKHANYE: Before I even got to him he stood up to be going to the rest room and I said to him "Excuse me", then he stopped because he was walking towards the toilet or restaurant and I asked him as to what happened during the day for him not to be co-operative with the comrades. He did not respond to my question, instead he drew out his gun and started shooting and he attempted to shoot me.
I managed to retreat and the shot missed me and the rest of the other people now stood up and I held his one hand that had the firearm and instead all the bullets, those that were discharged, were shooting in the air towards the ceiling. One comrade managed to disarm him, comrade Mkuzu, by the name of comrade Mkuzu, and was able to take the weapon.
And when he was attempting to run away, some threw bottles and they pelted other stones to him and when I got out I found him dropped, he was lying on the ground, and left him and went to my house. The following day I learnt he passed away.
MR MOTLOUNG: Okay. Mr Makhanye ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, it's not clear to me, did he run out of the tavern and was he attacked outside the tavern with bottles and stones?
MR MAKHANYE: Inside the tavern, that's where he started shooting and the whole thing ensued right inside the tavern.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they throw stones inside the tavern?
MR MAKHANYE: No. I beg your pardon, the stones were not pelted to him, but the bottles, pieces of bottles and other bottles were there and the knives were used as well to stab him inside the tavern.
ADV DE JAGER: And where were you at the time?
MR MAKHANYE: When he let go of the firearm and comrade took the firearm, I therefore left him alone and went outside to go home.
ADV BOSMAN: At were you searching for when they entered the tavern?
MR MAKHANYE: We were searching for weapons.
ADV BOSMAN: But what do you mean under "weapons", were you searching for knives as well?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: So weren't the knives taken from these people who had got into the tavern?
MR MAKHANYE: You see the comrades would take the knives at the door on entry, and when that happened I instructed some of the comrades - no, in fact, the other comrades informed the other part of the group of comrades and they used the same knives that had been confiscated from there.
In fact, what will happen, those knives will be destroyed after they had been taken or after the knives had been confiscated from the owners, but when that happened they used the same knives that had been taken from the people.
ADV BOSMAN: I'm afraid I'm a little confused now. Did the comrades who searched you at the entrance, did they take the knives and put them somewhere and then hand it back to the people when the fight ensued or ...? I'm not quite clear on that at all.
MR MAKHANYE: You see what would happen is that they will confiscate all those knives and put them in some back, the following day they would go and burn those knives, to destroy those knives. It will not be taken back, or the knives will not be taken back to their rightful owners.
ADV BOSMAN: And there was stabbing in the tavern if I understand you correctly, where did those knives then come from? The people who stabbed, where did they get the knives if they had been taken from them?
MR MAKHANYE: You see if I explain further, when the fight went on the comrades upon seeing that he started during the day, being problematic to them, they took out some of the knives there and distributed them amongst the members, the comrades. I mean the very same knives that had been confiscated from the people and put into the bag, they used the same knives. They were taken out of the bags and distributed amongst the comrades.
ADV BOSMAN: But now I'm really confused. If people were searching for arms and in the same time distributing arms, what was the purpose of the search then? Were only certain people searched?
CHAIRPERSON: Or perhaps to avoid a misunderstanding. Are you saying that in the normal course they took weapons from these people that came into the tavern, knives and so on, they put it into a bag, the comrades ...
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: ... and when this trouble with the deceased started, the comrades attacked the deceased and they took those knives that they confiscated out of the bag and they stabbed him with those knives. So the comrades were the people who attacked the deceased?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that's what happened.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Now Mr Makhanye, in your words, just to make it more clear, this confrontation between yourself and the deceased, at the core of it, what was it?
MR MAKHANYE: The core of this confrontation was about enquiring from him what the motivation was regarding his not being co-operative with the comrades, especially during the day he had refused to be searched by the comrades and now this thing happens again.
MR MOTLOUNG: When you say "during the day he had refused to be searched", do you mean at the tavern or do you mean, where?
MR MAKHANYE: I don't quite understand.
MR MOTLOUNG: What is it that he had done during the day?
MR MAKHANYE: During the day what happened was, he went to town and purchased something there and when he came back he refused for the comrades to search him at the cross-roads right at the entrance of the Sivukile township.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makhanye, perhaps also to assist again, for the sake of not taking too long. Was the situation, and we've heard a lot of evidence about this kind of thing, was the situation that the comrades were enforcing this consumer boycott, by controlling the access into the township, almost like a roadblock and they would search people who would come from town, to ascertain whether those people had any goods, merchandise, that they could have possibly bought in breach of the ...(intervention)
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So the deceased was coming from town and they blocked him at the roadblock and they tried to search him and then he took out a gun, he didn't allow the comrades at the roadblock to search him?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that what happened?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that is what happened.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was the problem that was reported to you when you came back home from work on the Friday afternoon.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Motloung.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTLOUNG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyawuza, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes, Mr Chairman.
Mr Makhanye, if I refer you to page 22 of the record, the affidavit that you made at Ermelo, the second paragraph from the bottom if you go up, you state ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, page 32 is ...(intervention)
MR NYAWUZA: Page 22, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh page 22.
MR NYAWUZA: His affidavit.
ADV DE JAGER: Okay, thank you.
MR NYAWUZA: The second paragraph from the bottom. Mr Makhanye, you stated in that paragraph that
"The comrades then decided the next day to conduct a roadblock at the cross-roads going into Sivukile township, to prevent the goods that might have been bought in Morgenzon to be brought into Sivukile."
What following day are you talking about in this affidavit, Mr Makhanye?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza, also again for the sake of progress, you can repeat your question if you want you if it can assist you, but perhaps just for your information, it seems as if, if you look at the pervious paragraph, the third one from the bottom, there was some meeting after the incidents that the deponent refers to, where there was a decision.
MR NYAWUZA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: And then he says "the next day". So it seems as if it's the day after that meeting. Have you got that?
MR NYAWUZA: Yes, no I get ...
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to take it from there?
MR NYAWUZA: No, I'll rephrase my question, thank you.
Mr Makhanye, you stated before this Commission the relationship between yourself and two police officers, being Mr Ghama and the deceased, was okay, is that correct?
MR MAKHANYE: Were they police?
MR NYAWUZA: Ja, Mr Ghama and the deceased were police officers, and you have testified before this hearing that they were, the relationship between yourself and them was okay. Do you confirm that?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
MR NYAWUZA: And on the day in question, you've stated before this hearing that the deceased was from the counter, he had bought some beers, for want of a better word, and he was going to give the beers apparently to his friend. What happened to the beers? Did you attack him, did you approach him whilst he had the beers in his hand or he took the beers to the table where he was seated and then went to the toilet? What actually happened?
MR MAKHANYE: ...(no English interpretation)
MR NYAWUZA: How far was your table ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, we didn't receive the translation.
CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat the previous answer please.
MR MAKHANYE: ...(no English interpretation)
MR NYAWUZA: My question was, how far was your table from the deceased' table?
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, just - alright, what Mr Nyawuza wanted to hear, you said that at one stage the deceased was buying something at the counter, presumably beers, now did he first take the beers to his table and then got up to go towards the toilet, or what happened? What happened to those beers?
MR MAKHANYE: He had already placed his beers on the table and it seemed to me he was now going to the toilet and that was at that point when I said to him "Excuse me, I'd like to talk to you".
MR NYAWUZA: And when you approached him he without any provocation from your side, took out a firearm and fired a shot at you. That is according to your testimony. Is that correct?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, upon speaking to him he therefore drew out his firearm and shot at me.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, if I hear you correctly the deceased had come from the counter, he put the beers down and he went in the direction of the toilet. In what direction? Did he have to pass by your table or was the toilet away from your table?
MR MAKHANYE: His table was right in front. We were behind and the toilet was right in front. He was standing from his table and approaching, going towards the toilet and it was at that point when I stood up, also approaching him and I requested to speak to him.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, you would agree with me if I state it to you that the deceased had had his back against you?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, when I said to him "Excuse me", he stood up. Yes, his back was against me, he was going the other - I was coming from the opposite direction.
MR MOTLOUNG: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I seem to pick up that the translation is not correct. Can I suggest that he repeats what he said and it be retranslated.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Won't you please just tell us, the question was "When the deceased was approaching the toilet, was his back turned towards you?"
MR MAKHANYE: No, he was not facing me. I said to him "Excuse me", then he stood still as I had ...(indistinct) to him to speak to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he facing - I'm sorry, I didn't hear the interpreter perhaps correctly. Just explain to us, just simply, was he facing you, facing in your direction or was his back turned towards you or what? I don't know how important this is, but in any case.
MR MAKHANYE: When we were talking - we were facing each other face to face when we were talking. When I said "Excuse me", he stood and looked at me and he waited until I got to him and I asked him and then he drew out his firearm. We were facing each other.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that's more clear. Mr Nyawuza, thank you.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, we were facing each other when he was shooting.
MR NYAWUZA: And did he afford you an opportunity to ask him what you wanted to ask him?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I spoke to him but he did not respond, instead he took out his firearm. Instead of him responding in words to me, he took out his firearm.
MR NYAWUZA: You've testified before this hearing that earlier on the day he took out his firearm at the entrance to Sivukile township and wanted to shoot your comrades. You were told by somebody else, that is what you said. Is that correct?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
MR NYAWUZA: And then when it was daylight when he could have done it, he didn't shoot, is that correct?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, he did not shoot. They fled, the comrades that is. He took out his firearm and they ran away, the comrades.
MR NYAWUZA: And then you said - if I were to rephrase my question, Mr Makhanye, Mr Makhanye, isn't it normal practice in taverns, even in pubs in town, that when people get into pubs they are searched, it is not specifically something that has got to do with politics, it's for safety of the patrons who come into the pubs, is that correct?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that is normal practice.
MR NYAWUZA: And Mr Makhanye, if I heard your testimony correctly, you told this hearing that the deceased pulled out his firearm, a shot went out, you grabbed his arm, you battled for the firearm until it fell to the ground and the other comrades were approaching, and when the firearm fell to the ground you ran away, is that correct? You went out.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that is so.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, what was then the importance of you disarming and after disarming him running away instead of taking action?
MR MAKHANYE: It was not my intention to fight him. As soon as I realised that he had no firearm in his hand, I left. My intention wasn't necessarily to fight him. I wasn't fighting with him in the first place.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, if I were to take you back to the day of your trial and Evander Supreme Court, you were asked numerously by the presiding judge there as to what organisation you belonged to and your response was that you did not belong to any political organisation. And if I'm to refer this hearing - I will go through my notes, on page 177, line 20, the learned judge in passing judgment on the merits referred to having spoken to you about you being a member and you said - he is saying, if I am quote him verbatim
"He is not a member SACO."
Why did you deny an alliance to a political party then and you come to this hearing today and state that you were a member, seven years after the hearing?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyawuza, can I just check with you. The judgment deals with accused number 1 it seems, line 17
"Hy wat beskuldigde 1 is ...(onduidelik)"
...(intervention)
MR NYAWUZA: As it pleases the hearing, I realise that that question is meant for applicant number one. I'll retract it then.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, did you have any membership of the said political organisation that you state to have been a member of, or were you just an ordinary supporter?
MR MAKHANYE: I am a full fledged of African National Congress.
MR NYAWUZA: And you stated before this hearing that the whole incident happened at a tavern. Had the deceased not pitched up at the tavern, would he also have had the same ending, would you have killed him at any event that could have presented itself?
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I think we should perhaps get clarity about this. You put it now to him "Would you have killed him?", but according to his evidence he's done nothing to kill the deceased. Did he in fact do anything in the process of killing the deceased, or did he associate with the killing of the deceased?
MR NYAWUZA: I'll put it into perspective, thank you.
Mr Makhanye, you've stated before this hearing that amongst your duties was to give direction to SACO comrades and discipline. If I were to say your portfolio within SACO was of high profile and here is an incident occurring before yourself, the deceased takes out a firearm, you disarm him and after disarming him, wouldn't it have been more of a responsibility on your part to have stepped in and spoken to your comrades, as you said you were giving discipline and direction to them, to ask them not to stab the deceased and hit him with bottles? Was there no other way that you could have addressed this issue?
MR MAKHANYE: It was difficult now, Chairperson, because the place had been rendered ungovernable already, so there was no order at all. I too was basically the survivor of the ...(indistinct), I had to find my way out myself and people were no longer governable and there were so many in number, you could not tell who is in the offensive and who is in the defensive, you could just not tell. So there was no way I could give instructions towards that effect because the place was already rendered ungovernable.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, this tavern, why did you go to this tavern on this particular day, what was the rush now behind going there?
MR MAKHANYE: I was going there to relax. There wasn't anything much provoking me to go there, except to go and relax to have my drink.
MR NYAWUZA: And incidentally, there's about 60 people amongst whom there are comrades as well in this tavern, is that so?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that was as you have said. The place was packed, the majority of which were the comrades as well.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, did anybody you know, like you stated before this hearing that you were going to talk to this gentleman about his behaviour during the day where he refused to be searched and upon entering the tavern, he refused to be searched. Was this ever - who gave you instructions to do these searched? Did anybody from above your portfolio give you these instructions?
MR MAKHANYE: No, no-one as such, but it was an opinion from the comrades' side because the security was no longer in place in the townships.
MR NYAWUZA: When you say it was the comrades, was this taken at a mass meeting or was this taken at a meeting of the leadership of SACO?
MR MAKHANYE: This happened at the comrades meeting. The Chairman was in prison at the time, so it was suggested by the comrades at the meeting, at their meeting, to implement this.
MR NYAWUZA: Did you at any stage at the mass meeting, as you in the plural, did you take any specific action as to what you do with anybody who transgressed what you thought to be the correct way in which these so-called white businesses should be opened to all?
MR MAKHANYE: No, we did not take any particular action as such, or a decision as such in regard to such actions, that anybody who defies the orders should be treated in a particular way, no, that much we had not gone to.
MR NYAWUZA: So when this fracas, you know where this guy was attacked, didn't you as part of the people who were in the tavern, foresee that it might end up in his death, because you stated before this hearing that knives were given to other comrades, didn't you foresee that it will lead to his death?
MR MAKHANYE: Well I foresaw that but there was not any other way I could help, but I could tell that he was going to be fatally injured. I thought that that was what was going to happen instead, that he was going to be brutally and fatally injured more than anything.
MR NYAWUZA: You didn't think about death, did you?
MR MAKHANYE: No, that did not cross my mind, I just thought that the following day I will hear the news that he's been fatally injured, not that he will be killed.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.
ADV DE JAGER: If he testifies that he foresaw that he would be fatally injured, doesn't he in fact say that he would be killed?
MR NYAWUZA: I think it confirms that.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but then you put it to him, you say you didn't foresee that he would be killed.
MR NYAWUZA: I thought we were past that question. Thank you for that.
Mr Makhanye, do you think the death of this police officer did anything to your struggle towards ...(indistinct) of all at Morgenzon?
MR MAKHANYE: May you please explain that question, it's not quite clear to me.
MR NYAWUZA: You are saying this guy refused to be searched, he went to a tavern, he was killed and you as comrades were working towards a furtherance of a certain political objective, if I were to put it like that, and his reluctance to listen to whatever you wanted the community to adhere to, ended up in his death, my question is, do you think that his death did your political objective struggle any good?
MR MAKHANYE: Well no, I don't think like that or I don't think so, but I do think however that that brought some misunderstanding or some bad blood between us and the Mananas, the community as well.
MR NYAWUZA: If you say that brought bad blood you know, between yourselves and the community and the Mananas, are you saying the community didn't approve of your actions on the 4th of May 1990, or what? Can you please clarify that.
MR MAKHANYE: Well with regards to the community, they were indeed in support of the boycott, but not to this effect, that one of us should be killed or part of the community members would be killed as a result of that.
MR NYAWUZA: So are you saying your mandate from the community was to see to it that people adhere to the boycott, but you shouldn't take the law into your hands like it happened on this day, not particularly you but the comrades that were a part of this killing?
MR MAKHANYE: The community was not at all in support of killing, but the boycott. That anybody should be killed was not part of the community's objective or intention.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, if I were to take you back to the ...(indistinct) of the firearm incident, when this gentleman you stopped him, you said "Excuse me", he stopped, how big - you know there are these lines in this hearing, there are these lines, can you tell us where were you, were you in the passage or were you in some big area, open like some dance floor, because this was a tavern? Where were you?
MR MAKHANYE: Well where we were standing, it was an open space. There were tables around us at any rate and there were also passages in-between the tables, but where we were particularly standing on that day at that time, it was an open space like here, surrounded by the chairs and tables and people were sitting down and having their drinks, and up and down as well as you may expect because it was a tavern and there were many.
MR NYAWUZA: Mr Makhanye, during the trial there was testimony to the effect that you grabbed the deceased from behind, held his arms and the other comrades stepped in to stab him. What is your comment on that?
MR MAKHANYE: No, it did not necessarily happen that way. I was talking to him and he shot subsequently, there was no way I grabbed, there was no time when I grabbed him from the back as it may have been suggested.
MR NYAWUZA: And were there people behind him?
MR MAKHANYE: There were many people around us, all corners, left right and centre. There were people around us and many of them too.
MR NYAWUZA: Where was the toilet, was the toilet outside or was it inside the tavern?
MR MAKHANYE: It was inside the tavern, right inside, but you obviously have to stand up and walk a few steps to the toilet.
MR NYAWUZA: We are told that about 30 to 60 people were present in this tavern. If you were to measure it against the room that we are in, how big would you say it was?
MR MAKHANYE: It would be the square metre of this house.
INTERPRETER: As he demonstrates it will range from the opposite towards my back and he estimated that to be a square metre.
MR NYAWUZA: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Makhanye, can you tell me how long were you a member of SACO?
MR MAKHANYE: SACO was formed in 1990, I think around February or March.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to page 23 of your statement in the bundle, at paragraph 3 you state -"Manana arrived at the tavern and refused to be searched before he could enter the tavern. Another comrade told me that Manana refused to be searched."
Now I just want to refer you - that is your version, I just want to refer you to page 16 of Joseph's statement and I just want to know from you which version is correct. That's at the first paragraph -
"The deceased went in the direction of the toilet. On his way to the toilet the deceased had a quarrel with another man from Newcastle. The deceased had a weapon, a firearm, and shot at the direction of the man from Newcastle."
And I just want to clarify with you, which version is correct here. Is it a misinterpretation that there was an argument with somebody else or was it because he refused to be searched? Can you just clarify that for me.
Let me just clarify it again for you, Jabulani. Your brother states that there was an argument which the deceased had with someone from Newcastle and it seems that that is why the incident had occurred, but according to your version it seems that he refused to be searched and therefore you approached him and therefore this whole incident occurred. So can you just clarify for us as to, do you still maintain that position, or is your brother mistaken?
MR MAKHANYE: Well I took a look here, I think the way my brother has explained and the opinion he maintains and the way he looked at this whole thing, I think he thought when he saw Bheki from Newcastle jumping towards us, he could have thought that Bheki and the late were fighting or had a conflict. This is the way it crosses my mind.
I don't think he saw that the whole thing was between who and who and that who was talking to who, because then the comrades just were alerted immediately after the heard a gunshot. But the person who reported to me, I - what happened was that the man I knew very well, the late that is, and I knew that he understands me very well each time we have a discussion, this is why I said I will approach him and talk to him. But the way my brother explains here it seems to me when he realised that this was happening and heard the gunshot and saw the other man from Newcastle jumping towards us, because there was this particular man from Newcastle as well who was there, who was present, Bheki Thambo his name is, he saw him I think and he thought that the deceased or the late was fighting or having a conflict with him. This is how it seems to me.
MS LOCKHAT: Okay. Then I just want to take you to the version that was presented by Vusi Ghama in your trial. I want to refer to the Committee, at page 165 of the bundle. He gives quite a long statement relating to Jabulani Makhanye's role in this incident and I just want to read it into the record. This is what Vusi Ghama had stated and this is what the judge had said was the version of Vusi
"Toe hy in die rigting van die geraas kyk sien hy dat beskuldigde 2 (beskuldigde 2 is Jabulani Makhanye) die oorledene van agter om sy boarms en bolyf vasgehou. Hulle was ..."
...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I don't know, would you like him to answer for instance, on this sentence, because otherwise you're going to put a whole two pages to him and how would he answer on that?
MS LOCKHAT: Okay. I just want to put it to you, Mr Makhanye, Mr Vusi Ghama, at page 165 it states that he said you held the deceased whilst your brother stabbed him with a knife. What is your comment in relation to that?
MR MAKHANYE: I don't agree with that, I completely disagree.
MS LOCKHAT: And he says after that as well ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, we don't hear the answer, the interpreter doesn't give us an answer. I don't know what's the trouble.
INTERPRETER: Well the interpreter did give an answer.
CHAIRPERSON: He said he disagrees with this.
INTERPRETER: Yes, he completely disagrees.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, alright.
MS LOCKHAT: And then just further down, just below paragraph 10, on the very same page, he says that the deceased only drew his weapon after he was stabbed. Can you comment on that? You said to us that when you approached him, when you approached him and you wanted to speak to him he drew out his weapon and here Mr Ghama is saying that only after he was stabbed he actually drew his weapon. Can you comment on that?
MR MAKHANYE: I completely disagree with that as well because the whole problem, where the whole problem emanated from was when I had put to him what I put to him and instead of responding he threw out his firearm, the version I laid to you earlier on.
MS LOCKHAT: And he also said there was a "stoeiery" between yourself and the deceased.
INTERPRETER: Please repeat that question, Ms Lockhat.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Ghama also said that there was a scuffle between yourself and the deceased.
MR MAKHANYE: There wasn't anything like that, not even once before.
ADV DE JAGER: You say "not even once before". Now what do you want to tell us, was there a scuffle afterwards?
MR MAKHANYE: We were talking quite well, there wasn't any scuffle. We were in good terms with this man.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but that evening you weren't in such good terms because he tried to shoot you, according to your evidence, there was - at that stage you were in a quarrel at least.
MR MAKHANYE: We did not have any argument as such or any scuffle for that matter. As I was talking to him in a very soft voice, in a very good manner, instead of responding to that he took out his firearm, he shot subsequently and the first shot missed me. And we had not had any altercation in the past, nor any conflict. I was only enquiring about the co-operation between him and the comrades and instead he shot, as I explained earlier on.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Jabulani, you see I just have one problem in relation to all the statements presented to the police and everybody placing you on the scene of the incident. I want to put it to you that you are sticking to the same story that you presented at your Court trial, because on page 158 of the judgment, at paragraph 2.3, I will start at 2.2 where you said you had soft drinks with some friends
"... when I was shocked to hear a gunshot go off in the shebeen. It appeared that a certain Manana had fired a shot which had injured a certain Nlangamandla. Some people first shot at Manana, who threatened to shoot at everybody in the shebeen. A number of people then became involved in a fight with Manana, shots went off during the course of this fight. I became involved in this fight which was taking place next to my table. I was in fear of my life and tried to prevent Manana from firing at me, by pushing him away."
The one thing which is consistent in your statement now is that -
"I managed to escape from the shebeen and went away."
That you're sticking to the same version that you did really nothing to the deceased and you approached him, but after that you ran away. And I want to put it to you that there's just so many statements in relation to your actual participation in that event, which is contrary to your version. Can you comment on that?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I completely disagree with the statements. I gave or submitted my application to give you the truth as to where it all started with regard to this incident. Well as for the people who've handed these statements as to where and how it started, nobody knows except for myself and the deceased because it was myself or I who spoke to him.
And at the Court of law I do agree that I did not tell the truth as it is or as it was because I was trying to avoid, as we may well be aware that at the time one would have been easily sentenced, given a very strong and vehement sentence because the government of the day, once they learn that you are a political member or you are affiliated with some political organisation, then there is no way you cannot be sentenced in a very strong way. So I was trying to avoid that. This is why I gave the version I gave at the Court of law.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I can understand that, but I've got trouble with what you're telling me today because I can't see anything that you've done wrong. You've addressed this man, he tried to shoot at you, you grabbed his hand, the weapon fell on the ground and you walked out. What did you do that was wrong? Did you kill this man? Did you participate in the killing?
MR MAKHANYE: Well I did not participate. You see once the firearm dropped, well I left, because it was not my intention to kill this person and as soon as the other comrade got hold of the firearm I left the house and disappeared, I went to my home. Of course there was no role I played in the assaulting of this man or revenging in any way.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you leave before they started stabbing him?
MR MAKHANYE: No. You see when I held his hand others were busy assaulting him from behind with bottles, but I was battling with the hand that had the firearm and as soon as it dropped down and the other comrade got hold of it I left, I did not bother to stay and witness any further developments.
ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't see any stabbing?
MR MAKHANYE: I did see that he was being stabbed from behind ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: With bottles or with knives?
MR MAKHANYE: They used bottles, that's what I saw mostly, and the knife I saw slightly, but the most I've seen was the bottles that were being used stabbing him. I did not particularly see as to who was doing this. It was so full in the tavern, it was not easy for me to even identify ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: And you didn't assist the persons who attacked him in any way, did you?
MR MAKHANYE: No, I did not. As soon as the firearm dropped and I realised the one comrade got hold of the gun I thought they will let go because there was not any further gunshots. I then left. And I was going out I did not see the very comrade, I went down to my house.
ADV DE JAGER: But weren't there at least three or four gunshots?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I was still holding his hand and there were gunshots heard. I think it was about three or four times, because there was one time when the ceiling was shot and the window as well, still battling too with the hand of the firearm because he was insisting to point at me with the firearm, but I was fighting back that he should continually point away from me.
CHAIRPERSON: When the deceased was being attacked from behind, didn't he try to stop those people from attacking him?
MR MAKHANYE: No, he did not because I kept hold of his hand and as soon as the firearm dropped and one other comrade took it, I did not see what happened thereafter. Whether he turned around to look at the ones who were behind him, I don't know. I can't tell if he ever attempted to fight them, I mean the ones who were fighting from behind. I can't tell because I did not wait long to see even that, I left immediately.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you were holding him it was impossible for him to turn around?
MR MAKHANYE: No, it wasn't easy for him to turn around because we was struggling over the firearm and I kept hold of his hand. There was no way he could fight the ones behind him because his intention and what he intended was to point the firearm at me, so I was the key more than the others behind him, because he wanted to get the firearm pointed at me and he was struggling with that more than the ones at the back.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but even if he wanted to stop the attack from behind, you were holding onto him, not so, and it wasn't possible for him to do that?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't have a knife, in fact you were not attacking him. You were not attacking him, you were just holding onto his hand.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The others at the back, the others behind him, they were actually attacking him, stabbing him and so on. So they would have been a bigger danger to him than what you were, not so?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you saw this attack on the deceased, you saw them stabbing him and attacking him with the bottles and so on.
MR MAKHANYE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But you kept on holding him, which stopped him from being able to turn around.
MR MAKHANYE: Well yes, also I was trying to avoid this firearm pointing at me because I knew what was next. I was also fighting for my life as well, because it could have been that if I let go of the hand, then I will be shot. So I was fighting death myself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.
Just one other question. Did your brother Joseph stab the deceased?
MR MAKHANYE: Oh well he told me that, but I did not see him stabbing, but that's what he told me after I'd stated to him. After we were talking about this, then he stated to me that he indeed stabbed him as well.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to Exhibit A, at paragraph 5 where you state
"The comrades who were in the tavern then responded by attacking him and killed him. I was part of the group that attacked him. I grabbed his hand in order to disarm him and my brother, Joseph B Makhanye, is one of the people who stabbed him, Mr Manana, in the process."
It seems there that you actually - it looks as if you saw everything, that you witnessed everything. Can you comment on that?
MR MAKHANYE: Well as soon as I'd heard that the late passed away, the following day, then I enquired, I wanted to establish the comrades who participated to this because that now was a case. And I found out that a few other comrades, Bheki and Joseph, agreed that they did stab him because of some reasons. And I wrote in my statement as such, that there were others, they formed part of the group that stabbed. Now it was their confirmation, this is how they appear in my statement, that Joseph said he stabbed him as well as Bheki said he hit him with a bottle.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to ask you one last question. Would you say that the deceased was killed because he was a policeman in that area and that he no longer co-operated with the comrades in that area, or would you say that because of that night at the tavern there were these disruptions and that was the sole reason why he was killed?
MR MAKHANYE: I may or I will say that he was killed because he was no longer co-operative with the comrades, not necessarily because he was policeman because it was quite some time that he was a policeman and residing in the township. And the police had left the township, except for him and Ghama, because they were well co-operative with us or the comrades. Now I will not stand here and say he was killed as a result of him being a policeman.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to page 166 of the judgment, where Mr Ghama, the judge asked him questions relating to political motive and in the last paragraph Ghama says
"Ghama is gedaag oor watter denkbare rede daar kan wees waarom beskuldigde 1 en 2 die oorledene sou aanval. Sy antwoord was dat hy nie inderdaad sodanig 'n bewering maak dat daar 'n politieke motief is nie, maar daar(sic) hy nou gedaag is hy wel 'n moontlike rede kan dink, naamlik dat beskuldigdes 1, 2 en 4 lede van 'n beweging of groep is wat as SACO bekend staan, wat nie polisiebeamptes of lede in die woonbuurt wou hê nie. Dit is gemeensaak dat die oorledene 'n polisiebeampte was."
That's in relation to what he states which could have been one of the reasons why he was killed.
I also just want to refer the Committee to a statement made by a victim, Mr Simon Manana ...(intervention)
MR MOTLOUNG: Mr Chairman, will all due respect to my learned friend that side, I'm not sure really what is expected of my client. Is he expected to respond?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know if you want to put both the sections to him. Perhaps you must just hold that one because she's still looking for that reference.
Mr Makhanye, what is your response to this possible reason that Mr Ghama seemed to have given the Court when this case was heard? Do you want to respond to that?
INTERPRETER: He would like for the interpreter to explain that in Zulu, and earlier on the interpreter had indicated that we don't have Afrikaans interpreters. So each time Ms Lockhat reads in Afrikaans the interpreter keeps quiet.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Look just in a nutshell, at the trial, Mr Ghama when he was asked what could possibly have been the motive for the killing, he couldn't think of an immediate motive, but then he said well you know, it is possible that because yourself and your brother and - I'll just get the name of accused number 4, of Mr Sibeko, because you were members of SACO and it was known that SACO didn't want any police in the township, that that is perhaps the reason why this man was attacked. So Ms Lockhat is asking you whether you want to say anything about that, about what Ghama told them.
MR MAKHANYE: Well I don't think so, I don't think it is according to the way Ghama has stated. I did explain explicitly clear earlier on that the policemen had been about six weeks residing in town, no more in the township, except for Mr Manana and Mr Ghama. I did explain that they were residing in the township because they were very co-operative with us and the comrades. I don't think he was killed solely and largely for that reason, that he was a policeman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. And there's another version that Ms Lockhat wants to put to you, I think it's the father of the deceased if I'm not mistaken.
MS LOCKHAT: It's page 29 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: At paragraph 2. I'll state it in English because there's no Afrikaans version.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.
MS LOCKHAT: He says he feels that his son was possibly murdered because he was a policeman and that's what Mr Simon Manana also says. Can you comment on that?
MR MAKHANYE: I don't think so, I still reiterate the fact that I'm very much apologetic about the fact that his son was killed and I still maintain the fact that his son was not necessarily killed because he was a policeman. But Mr Manana together with his son, I lived with them for quite a long time and I belonged to a soccer club that he owned, Mr Manana that is. Ernest Manana was my associate as well in the area, so that I really don't think that Mfanayeto, or the deceased rather, was killed simply because he was a policeman. I'm very much apologetic to the Manana family.
ADV DE JAGER: Sir, do you know Mr Siphiwe Mayayja, the Mayor of Morgenzon?
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I know him very well.
ADV DE JAGER: He's made an affidavit on page 36 and he's stated that he was also present at the tavern. And on the top of page 37 he states he was also the Chairperson at the time, of SACO, is that right?
MR MAKHANYE: No, he was not one, or a Chairperson, but he was a General Secretary of SACO.
ADV DE JAGER: I see. Yes, that's correct. He states that the quarrel, according to you, erupted because the deceased had bought goods in the town. And then I don't follow because he says
"The quarrel, according to them, erupted from the deceased who had bought goods in town as the Secretary of SACO and a supporter of ANSIL."
Was the deceased also a member of ANSIL, or a supporter of ANSIL?
MR MAKHANYE: You mean the late?
ADV DE JAGER: Ja.
MR MAKHANYE: No, he wasn't one, but he was one person who lived in the area and he was very co-operative with the comrades.
ADV DE JAGER: But he was not on the side of the police sort of, he was a supporter of SACO and ANSIL? That's why you allowed him to stay on in the township.
MR MAKHANYE: Well yes, we agreed, we allowed him to live there because he had promised that he will not be a hindrance towards the comrades. And based on that, because we knew him as well from a long time ago, from the township, in the township, we believed him.
ADV DE JAGER: And I think you agree with the statement further on
"I did not give any SACO member authority to kill any person who was buying from the white premises and/or businesses."
MR MAKHANYE: Yes, I do agree with that part of the statement.
ADV DE JAGER: I've still got the problem that I don't quite see what you've done that contributed to the death of the deceased, except for the fact that you asked him why did he buy and that provoked him. But you didn't do anything to, you didn't stab him, you didn't scuffle with him, he didn't hold him so that other people could stab him, and the moment the gun fell you went off, out of the building. So what did wrong did you do?
MR MAKHANYE: Well here, I think the problem about me here is the fact that I held onto his hand, the one that had the firearm. I think that is my scene basically, because I held on the hand continually, the hand that had the firearm.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. But why did you hold onto that hand, what was the reason, your reason for holding the hand?
MR MAKHANYE: Well it is because - when I think, had it not been for the fact that I held onto his hand so long he could have been in a position to defend himself or even shoot others, myself included.
ADV DE JAGER: But didn't you keep the hand, hold the hand because you were afraid that he would shoot you or other people?
MR MAKHANYE: Well that was my greatest fear.
ADV DE JAGER: And the moment the gun fell to the ground you released his hand and you went out.
MR MAKHANYE: Well I realised that he was now harmless, I could tell that he had no longer the firearm now. I think my scene was the fact that I held onto his hand, that is the problem with me here.
ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't the sin in - your sin in fact, that you held him in order to enable the other people to stab him?
MR MAKHANYE: Well yes, I do agree, even if it can be put that way, but that was not necessarily my intention, that I will hold onto the hand to enable the ones at the back to stab him, but my fear here was that should I let go of the hand, of his arm, then he will shoot me, more than the fact that I'm enabling others behind him to stab him.
ADV BOSMAN: But did you approve of the others stabbing him? Did you feel it was the right thing for them to do?
MR MAKHANYE: Well I don't think it was a good thing, but I was running away from the fact that I will easily be shot at if I let go of the hand. That was my fear, of not wanting to let go of the hand, I would have been shot.
ADV BOSMAN: But it cannot be a good thing to stab another person, but did you feel it was the right thing to do at that time?
MR MAKHANYE: No, I did not see - it was not a good thing to be done, but there was nothing I could do effectively from my side because I was also in my small battling, that I did not want to let go of the hand because I will be shot at.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any further questions, Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Has the Panel got anything else?
ADV BOSMAN: Nothing thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Any re-examination, Mr Motloung?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If it pleases you, only one aspect.
Mr Makhanye, Mr Vusi Ghama that Ms Lockhat referred to, citing from the documents in front of us, is he the same Mr Ghama that you referred to earlier on as the policeman or one of the policemen who was allowed to stay in the township?
MR MAKHANYE: No, he is not the one, but he is a cousin. This Ghama is not the one I referred to, he's not the policeman, this one.
MR MOTLOUNG: And is there anything in particular that you wish to say regarding that Mr Ghama and this incident, with particular reference to the evidence that he gave there? You will recall you told me something as I was consulting with you here.
MR MAKHANYE: I will respond briefly about Mr Ghama, Vusi that is. When this thing transpired, when we tell the truth, he was not even there. Vusi Ghama, as I left the tavern I met him at the door. Now that means Vusi Ghama, this particular Vusi Ghama, was a person who had some grudges with us because we had a quarrel with him, he was a member of IFP in the area or in the township and we were always addressing controversial matters, to an extent that the police had to intervene between IFP and us.
Now the evidence that he advanced the Court of law was more biased, more than anything it was in favour of him because then we had this grudge more than factual because he did not witness a thing. Thank you.
MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTLOUNG
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Motloung. Mr Makhanye, you are excused, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I assume that we will be calling the other applicant.
MR MOTLOUNG: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I don't know how to deal with the situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MOTLOUNG: I wish to appear at the gents.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry, sorry, we'll just adjourn for a brief moment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
