MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, my next witness will be Shakespeare Buthelezi speaking. Chairperson, just to brief the Committee, he's not going to testify on the operation, the merits, he's going to just testify on Monde Radebe. That's all Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
SHAKESPEARE TAMISANI BUTHELEZI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Buthelezi, is it correct that you are an APLA cadre?
MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it correct also that you applied for amnesty, you were in jail and you applied for amnesty and you were released in 19 September 1998?
MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Now you have heard Mr Leshomo testifying about Monde Radebe who he indicated that is the person who gave them orders and who commanded them to an operation in Woodburn. Do you know this Monde Radebe?
MR BUTHELEZI: Yes I do know Monde Radebe.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee how do you know him?
MR BUTHELEZI: I knew him in 1988, that is when I went into Tanzania.
CHAIRPERSON: 19?
MR BUTHELEZI: 1988. He was a Platoon Commander in Tanzania.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes?
MR BUTHELEZI: In late 1989 when I went to train in Uganda he infiltrated into this country.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if you can just repeat that, I had some interruption. In 1989?
MR BUTHELEZI: When I went to train in Uganda in 1989 he infiltrated South Africa.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Now did you know him as Monde Radebe at the time?
MR BUTHELEZI: No, I did not know him by that name. I knew his combat name then, he was Mabena.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you come again with the name?
MR BUTHELEZI: I knew him as Mabena, that was his combat name. That is until I came back to the country. He heard that we were in prison. When I arrived in prison there were other comrades already incarcerated and they informed me that they had had an operation in which an APLA member had been involved. On enquiry I discovered that this person was Monde Radebe. When I questioned them on where they knew this Monde from they informed me that Monde Radebe was the Commander of that mission. I enquired from cadres with whom we had trained about who used that name of Monde Radebe and I was informed that it was Comrade Mabena who had been the bodyguard of Zephania Mothopeng.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you know his real name?
MR BUTHELEZI: His real name was Sibusiso Kubeka.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry could you just repeat that please Mr Buthelezi?
MR BUTHELEZI: His real name was Sibusiso Kubeka.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Will I be correct to say that you don't know anything about this operation except what you heard from the applicant, that they were together with Monde Radebe and you cannot confirm that whether they indeed were with him?
MR BUTHELEZI: Yes I did not know anything about the operations, so I do not have the facts as to whether he was present or not.
MR MBANDAZAYO: That is all Chairperson. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo. Mr Venter, do you have any questions you would like to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VENTER: Thank you Chairperson. So you cannot assist the Committee by saying that this operation that was conducted by the applicant here was indeed upon instruction of Monde Radebe?
MR BUTHELEZI: No I cannot.
MR VENTER: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VENTER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Venter. Ms Patel any questions? Only if you want to, you're not obliged to?
MS PATEL: I'm just considering my position, I don't want to shoot myself in the foot as to whether I should probe further or leave it. No, I think I will leave it there, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it you don't have any re-examination Mr Mbandazayo?
MR MBANDAZAYO: None Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO
CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, any questions?
JUDGE MOTATA: Just one, Chairperson.
Do you know whether what happened to Monde Radebe? Is he still alive to your knowledge?
MR BUTHELEZI: I heard that is he now deceased. That I heard whilst I was in prison.
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?
MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Just one. I gather from your evidence, Mr Buthelezi that his real name was Sibusiso Kubeka. So Monde Radebe and Mabena were both combat names?
MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, those were combat names, Chairperson. In fact if you are going on an operation it will be given a certain name and you will also adopt a different name and on engaging on another operation you would also adopt another different name.
CHAIRPERSON: So you could use a number of combat names throughout your career?
MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now we've heard the name Bernard being used here. Some people refer to him in the statements in this matter which we know you don't know anything about but some people, some of the let's call them co-perpetrators refer to him as Monde Radebe and others as Bernard. Would that be usual or unusual?
MR BUTHELEZI: That was a usual practice. You could change your names a hundred times.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but in one operation I could use two names?
MR BUTHELEZI: Please repeat that?
CHAIRPERSON: If I was in an operation with some of my people in my command, if I was the Commander, right? And I'm Monde Radebe, would some of the people refer to me as Monde Radebe and others refer to me as Bernard or would they all refer to me as Monde Radebe or all refer to me as Bernard?
MR BUTHELEZI: If for instance I was a Commander or a Section Commander, it is impossible to employ two names in one operation. I would use just one unless there is a person whom I do not trust within that unit, I would explain to the group that I will adopt one name but for those people I do not trust I would adopt a different name because as a Commander you have to be very sensitive and you have to reconnoitre your area very carefully as well as be very alert on the members of your unit because they themselves can be infiltrated so that your position or your operation is sold out.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Any questions arising Mr Mbandazayo?
MR MBANDAZAYO: None Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Venter?
MR VENTER: None thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VENTER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Buthelezi, that concludes your testimony.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, that's the applicant's case.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Venter are you still not calling any witnesses or have you changed your mind?
MR VENTER: I'm not calling any witnesses, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: My position still stands, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. That then brings the leading of evidence in this matter to the end. All that remains now is to receive submissions from the legal representatives and I'll ask Mr Mbandazayo to commence.
MR MBANDAZAYO IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, my argument will leave you with more questions than answers and as such I would like to raise some few salient points.
The first one, the applicant has testified, I don't want to repeat and he indicated that the time he was a supporter. Of course I don't want to repeat, the Committee knows how APLA was operating and how this - especially the repossession unit were conducting it's business. Of course I know the question will be of course definitely that in all your hearings, of what you have heard since the start of the Amnesty Committee, it's the first time that you heard about an operation of this nature from APLA. That is why I'm saying it will leave you with more questions than the answers.
Of course I must concede that with all the hearings that I've been involved in, it's only where a supporter has taken the initiative on their own but without the involvement of a senior member of the party or the military wing, while they were saying they were doing that in support of the organisation. But when a member of the military wing is involved then it implies that an order was given for that specific operation and of course it has been the testimony of various hearings that it's only for selected few who participated in those operations.
Chairperson, if I know that none of those members were involved, I'll mention one operation which was not similar but the way it happened raised questions on the Committee as much as they were agreeing, all of them saying it was an APLA operation but there were few aspects which were of concern in Wesselsbron incident, supermarket, that APLA was divided. There was an offensive unit and there was repossession unit which of course Mr Venter correctly put it that it was codename Beauty Salon. It was the name of the unit, it was it's codename, it has it's codename as Beauty Salon. So the operation, the offensive unit attacked the supermarket and killed many people and they also repossessed and the Committee ...(indistinct) said no, there is no way that we can grant you amnesty for repossessing because it was not your duty to do that and APLA was forced to go to send somebody senior, Letklapa Mphahlele to go to Bloemfontein and say what happened in that operation and he explained that because the repossession unit was involved in other mission and we could not postpone this one, we decided the offensive unit to do both of them. Hence it did not go right because they did their offensive but they could manage to take the money, they left an amount of half a million and they took only R3000 because they were not trained in that and the Committee got an insight of how the repossession unit operates, that it was also a specialised unit, not everybody participates in it.
So that is why I'm saying it leaves more questions than answers, this one because ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Like the case where they went to allegedly go and buy goats with people being part of the operation who weren't members of APLA or even aware?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson. So and also he explains, Chairperson, that APLA had a task force which was used in VIP protections and others. If there was a shortage at that particular point in time, they take it from the task force to supplement their manpower. They go to ordinary members only to drive getaway cars if they are in need at that particular point in time they don't have somebody, to drive. Just to drive a getaway car, not to be involved in the operation. So I'm trying to highlight some good points then the Committee will see then vis-a-viz this one. I don't want to, I won't want to say anything more but the Committee will see this one.
Now there are other various aspects of course, especially the question of Malinga, the application of Malinga. It raises concern, Chairperson. Various serious concern. Of course I don't have problems with Qibla. If the application was saying he was a member of Qibla, maybe I would have in a better position and that is what they did, he did it in conjunction with the members of PAC, at that particular point in time, one would understand but his application is saying that he did that for his own benefit and of course it defeats the whole purpose of the application, if it was for personal gain.
The other aspect is that, Chairperson, which was raised and also I raised in re-examination that when you asked the applicant what you told the magistrate, the lady, was it the truth and he confirmed that it's the truth and I also ask again and confirm that it was the truth but subsequent to the question it transpired that according to me it was not the truth. Now in a situation of that nature you are left with more questions than the answers.
Chairperson, there are many of them, I'm not intending to take your time and also that when it comes to the question of leadership when the applicant was asked about the leadership of the PAC. Of course though I may in some instances agree with him that, you know, when you are in jail sometimes you forget some of these things but of course there are certain things which ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well we can't expect every supporter to know who all the deputy-presidents are and the whole hierarchy of APLA. I'm sure that if we approached people now and asked the same question about who is the leader in the PAC or we go to an ANC person and asked him for the hierarchy, he's not going to get everything correct, he's just an ordinary ...(intervention)
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But what about the one point, like in the applicant's statement and it's not the sort of thing one would expect him to have lied about when making the statement to the magistrate that he was approached by Solly and Solly did this, you know, it seems like - and Solly and him played the main role rather than Monde, there's hardly any mention at all?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, exactly that's from what you gathered from the statement and also what you get it and also Solly saying he was approached by him.
CHAIRPERSON: And I think also the point that you raised earlier which one would have to consider, you know, about you saying that these repossession units were specialised units and if there was a shortage they would draw on the task team who were also trained people. It's probably to avoid the very situation that if they're captured, they're not going to go and tell the names of each and every person who participated?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, as Shakespeare Buthelezi indicated that there was a fear of infiltration and not everybody knew at that time, it's only now that there's a Truth and Reconciliation, they knew that APLA was involved in activities of that nature. So definitely it was a closely guarded secret within APLA itself. Even the leadership of the PAC did not know about that.
CHAIRPERSON: What I'm saying is that if a member of a unit was captured and he was a properly trained cadre, that will probably be the last information you'd give, no matter what would be the identification of these comrades?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes exactly, Chairperson, that's what I'm trying to get at that it was not - you cannot just draw from anybody to be part of that because the fear of infiltration because everybody has to be screened at it takes a long process so it was a secret. As I indicated how secret it is, even the leadership of the PAC, the top structure, that's why they kept for a long time the separation between the military and the political side so that the political side would not answer most of these things, they were not aware of what was happening and also within APLA not everybody knew about that. So that's why I'm saying, Chairperson, it's very important. But having said that Chairperson, I think mine is to say you have heard the applicant and I think his evidence will enable the Committee to reach a fair and just decision in this matter and I cannot take it any further than that, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo. Mr Venter, do you have any submissions to make?
MR VENTER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I'm not going to take you through the provisions of the Act, I think that's trite by now.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we know them pretty well by now, Mr Venter.
MR VENTER: One must bear in mind that the entire purpose of granting amnesty to a person is to assist people who formed part of a political group and who committed deeds associated with a political objective. Now the Act is very clear on this, it can be a member of the defence force or of a liberation organisation etc. etc. Or a supporter of such body. This act, or the Act specifies that the act must have been performed with the bona fide intention to promote the objectives of that party or that organisation and it is on this very point where I have a serious problem with the applicant's evidence. In his application for amnesty he said that he became a member in 1990 or a supporter of the PAC. Today in his evidence in chief he said it was in 1970. What is however very clear after he showed his membership card that it was only in 1997 that he actually became a member of the PAC. As my learned colleague argued, the situation we have here and it's a well known fact is that the PAC operated through APLA for its so-called repossession and the redistribution of riches and assets.
What is also clear is that there was a specialist group which was supposed to carry out this repossession. The applicant's evidence is very clear in this connection and the inference which one can draw from all the documents of this Committee is that he was not a member, he was simply a supporter and that immediately causes the question to arise. An ordinary supporter is not a member, there isn't any record of him, who has no training of any kind except in his application he says that he actually did one shooting lesson, one target practise.
CHAIRPERSON: He said he went to a target practise but that was for purposes of his business, to protect his business. It wasn't a military type training, how to break down a gun and put it back, that sort of thing.
MR VENTER: That is correct. So we are dealing here with a man who had no military training whatsoever. A person with the stature of Monde Radebe would really not have approached the applicant who was a totally untrained person and given him this very important instruction, namely to rob a bank and then to hand over the money to APLA. This simply does not sound logical and I think APLA had specialist cadres who were actually trained for this kind of thing and they would have been chosen to carry out this kind of act. As my learned friend commented, there was previous case to which he referred, you had certain defensive units and then the so-called Beauty Salon people and that the one unit was not entitled to perform the duties of the other because they were separate specialist units. So it seems that the applicant is really not telling the truth.
If one also looks at the application of Malinga, he isn't even a member of the PAC, he's a member of Qibla. He surely, in circumstances where he was applying for amnesty, have disclosed the fact that "we did this, I'm a member of Qibla as well as the PAC or that there was a join cooperation between these two organisations and we divided the money and Qibla was to have received X amount and the PAC was to have received X amount. There would have been no reason whatsoever for him to approach this Committee to request amnesty and then to say that the money was used for his own personal gain because that would make his whole application futile immediately and that really causes one great concern.
What is also very important is this. From the statement made and the applicant says that - this is the statement made before Mrs Ferreira and he says that this is the truth. From that statement it appears that Solly and the applicant actually played the major roles. What is significant here is that the name Gadebe is not mentioned. In cross-examination on this aspect it became very clear, he could very easily have told the Committee, look, we wanted to protect our leader and that's why we didn't mention his name but he couldn't actually think that far back to say something like that. That Gadebe was never part of this operation is very clear from the statement and it's also clear from the statements that after the robbery the money was actually divided amongst these people personally.
What one must realise that after 1994 everything is now out in the open and it is the very purpose of this Committee to search for the truth and to explain it and if the applicant was a member of APLA or was acting on the instructions of APLA one would expect that APLA would have been aware of this operation and that APLA would have sent people to come and testify to say yes, we were aware of this, we needed the money, we gave Gadebe the order to do this and Gadebe gathered together his own people to carry it out. But there was no such testimony here and you must also remember that this action was a bank robbery in which the two people were killed in cold blood, brutally and without any good reason.
Mrs Barnard, who was quite a plump lady, was shot dead behind her desk. Mr Fick who did not have the keys to the safe. When he told them that he didn't have the keys he was shot there and then in cold blood. It wasn't necessary, in any way, to shoot these people dead.
The money which they obtained, they could have obtained in any event without killing anybody so the killing of these two people is not explained by anybody and it's very difficult to see how the death of these two people actually promoted APLA's interests.
The other aspects are firstly, the aspect of the robbery, lockets, rings, watches, etc. robbed from staff in the bank and the explanation for that is "we don't know what happened to these items". But this forms part of the loot which was robbed. There's no evidence before the Committee that those items which were actually robbed from the persons themselves were actually handed to APLA ever and it is also very interesting in the applicant's case that at that stage when this offence was committed he had already had two previous convictions for robbery and interestingly enough, a robbery at First National Bank and a second one, at the O.K. Bazaars. There was a very big amount involved, R636 000, if my memory serves and APLA's unit, the repossession unit, was probably not "stupid" and I don't think that APLA would have wanted its people who performed these repossession operations, they wanted them to be caught.
So one is dealing with a man who had already been convicted and sentenced, his fingerprints were known. At that stage he was a man who had been released on bail and it's also further interesting if one looks at his statement that he said that when Solly approached him for this operation he was very cautious because of the fact that he had cases outstanding against him and it seems to me to be correct, he would have been cautious, he wouldn't have further wanted to jeopardise his situation and it is my submission that the only which to overcome that would have been of a previous cases, were very lucrative. As I said there was a vast amount of money involved in the previous robbery and I don't think he would have jeopardised his situation further with a case like this. So it is my submission that this Committee should find that Mr Leshomo was not a member of a political organisation, that he was not acting on the instructions or orders of APLA or the PAC and that the act that he performed did absolutely nothing to promote the case or the interests of APLA or the PAC and that the act which he committed by himself and his co-accused were actually committed for their own personal benefit and I would therefore request the Committee to refuse the application for amnesty. I thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Venter. Ms Patel, do you have any submissions that you would like to make?
MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, simply to state that I align myself with the address by my learned colleague, Mr Venter. I accordingly also submit that the applicant hasn't made out a case for amnesty, he hasn't qualified on either the requirements of full disclosure or that the act was carried out with a political motive or objective. I accordingly request that his application be denied. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any reply?
MR MBANDAZAYO IN REPLY: Just a point on what Mr Venter has raised on the aspect of the killing of the two bank employees, just to elucidate further. In terms of the repossessing which unit, Beauty Salon, it was not within their mandate to kill. Their mandate was only to kill in self-defence. Under no circumstances would they use force. They were using the weapons to threaten people so that they can succumb. If they are not willing to do that, they cannot shoot. Hence it was separated from the offensive unit because the offensive unit was only to kill, that their duty was only to kill. They were only killing in self-defence, if they are attacked then they will fire back. That was their mandate of the repossessing unit. Thank you Chairperson, I wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo. That then brings this hearing to a conclusion. It's our policy that we hand down written decisions. We accordingly reserve our decision and we hope to hand down a written decision in this matter in the very near future.
I would like to thank the legal representatives for their assistance in this matter and we'll then be adjourning until tomorrow. Will that be at half past nine, Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning when we will proceed with the next matter on the roll. Thank you, thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
