Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: I would, at this stage, request the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. I'm Chrystal Cambanis, attorneys Nichols appearing for the applicant in the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis.

MR MAPOMA: Zuko Mapoma, the Leader of Evidence. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, are there any victims in this matter, or not?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson in this matter there is only one victim who was a police officer, but unfortunately all the attempts to trace the victim have been unsuccessful. We have advertised in the radio and all that has been in vain. We have also assigned the Witness Protection Unit to assist in the tracing, but unfortunately it has also not succeeded, Chairperson and it is my submission Chairperson that all reasonable steps have been taken by the Investigative Unit to get hold of the victims, but in vain.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Yes, I think in the circumstances we'll have to proceed without the presence of the victim, seeing that all reasonable steps were taken and there's been no success in tracing him. Ms Cambanis, I take it your client will be testifying?

MS CAMBANIS: He will, in English and he will affirm his ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KOETLE: (affirmed states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Mr Koetle, you are the applicant in this matter. We only have one bundle, but if I can show you your application in the prescribed form appears from page 1 to 9 of the application, your signature is at page 8 of the application, I beg your pardon, page 6, do you confirm that that is your signature?

MR KOETLE: Yes, I do.

MS CAMBANIS: And do you confirm the contents of that application?

MR KOETLE: Yes, I do.

MS CAMBANIS: If we look at page 12 and 13, sorry Chairperson, the index and the pagination is not the same, it's actually at page 10 and at page 11, 12 and 13 of the bundle. Is that your handwriting?

MR KOETLE: Yes, it is.

MS CAMBANIS: And those are further responses you gave at the request of the TRC to the various incidents?

MR KOETLE: Yes, it is so.

MS CAMBANIS: Today the only application before this Committee is that item 6 on page 12, Murder of a security policeman at house 2772, Rockville, Soweto. Is that correct?

MR KOETLE: Yes, it's correct.

MS CAMBANIS: But I would just like to take you through from page 10, item 1, the railway line sabotage. Is it correct that there were no injuries in that matter?

MR KOETLE: The injuries we could only pick up was through the media.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

MR KOETLE: But during the last amnesty application it was indicated that no evidence has come forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Cambanis, that number 1, the railway line sabotage, has it been dealt with by the Amnesty Committee?

MS CAMBANIS: It has been, Mr Chairman, according to him, that application was dealt with a few weeks ago before this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS CAMBANIS: Item 2, the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court, that is a matter in which you have already received, been granted amnesty, is that correct?

MR KOETLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Item 3 on page 12, the possession of a stolen vehicle, that relates - that's part of the Johannesburg car bomb, is that correct?

MR KOETLE: Yes it is so.

MS CAMBANIS: And so that is also - amnesty has been granted.

JUDGE MOTATA: I think he should be assisted with the mike, I see the light not coming on, I don't know.

MS CAMBANIS: So what you've just said is that item 3 on page 12, you've already been granted amnesty as part of the Johannesburg car bomb?

MR KOETLE: I believe so, it is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Then I just want to skip over 4. Item 5 is actually an "incorrection" which has been dealt with before, it's actually not at Ellis Park, but at the Standard Bank Arena.

MR KOETLE: Yes it is so.

MS CAMBANIS: And that has also been dealt with and amnesty has also been granted in respect of that.

MR KOETLE: ...(indistinct)

MS CAMBANIS: Then besides the murder of the security policeman, there's only item 4, 7 and 8 which relate to operations, the escape from police custody, item 4 and item 8.

MR KOETLE: Yes, it is so.

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson although this will be dealt with in Chambers, previously we have asked for that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would probably be better if you can make mention of them now and then we can include it all in one decision instead of doing these last few piecemeal.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that would probably be the best. Is that all right with you Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Koetle, can I just ask you, previously you've given evidence that you were a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, you received military and political training. At previous hearings you've given that evidence, do you confirm that evidence?

MR KOETLE: Yes, I confirm.

MS CAMBANIS: Can you please, if you turn to event number 4, the escape from police custody, just briefly tell this Committee the circumstances surrounding this event?

MR KOETLE: Thank you Mr Chair.

The escape from police custody emanates primarily from our training. When I was arrested by the police that year, I was highly involved in MK activities inside the country, so when the police arrested me and it was after I had also planted the Magistrate Court bomb blast, I was of the view that the police might also pick up that I was the person responsible for that bombing, so as part of training we were taught how to make all possible means or try all possible means of escaping from that time the racist regime's custody, ...(indistinct) it was no exception and then I escaped.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you escape by guile or by force?

MR KOETLE: It was not by force Mr Chair, some of my comrades who were outside, after realising that I was arrested, it was during the time where the police were going around the locations picking up people not in possession of ...(indistinct) identity documents, so one of the guys was sent to the police station under that guise and then it was also known that admission of guilt was going to be asked. So instead of that guy paying the admission of guilt, I was the one who paid the admission of guilt, only using his name.

CHAIRPERSON: You took advantage of capitalising on the inefficiency of the bureaucracy?

MR KOETLE: That is so, Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: And then just on the question of escape, if you can just turn to the one item 8 again, an escape from the Johannesburg prison 1990.

MR KOETLE: Okay. Mr Chair, this escape happened when I and some of my comrades were detained and locked at the so-called Sun City prison which is better known as Johannesburg prison. So we were becoming frustrated by the delays in granting us amnesty and the delays that were taking place at the Jet Park Conference Centres where our future was being negotiated.

CHAIRPERSON: I think when you say amnesty, you probably mean indemnity.

MR KOETLE: Yes, it's correct, Sir. So when we realised that it appears things were going back instead of forward, we then planned with my comrades to escape, so we managed to smuggle some hacksaw into the prison via some of our corrupt prison warders and then we sawed our way out and no person was injured in this escape.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. And then if you could just briefly - item 6, the only remaining incident is the murder of the security policeman, October 87. Just briefly tell the Committee.

MR KOETLE: Thank you Mr Chair.

As I may have alluded earlier that this incident happened after I had planted the Magistrate Court bomb, which was in April, so when the police came to me in October of the very same year, 1987, I knew that they were on my trail and if they could have arrested me that day, I should think that I would have been part of the statistics today, so when they picked me up at a particular flat in Hillbrow, the two policemen that came into my flat, at the first instance they were not courteous to me because they burst into my flat, without even introducing themselves. They wanted me to tell them my name, to tell my name to them, so I denied that I was the person that they were looking for, so they then insisted that I produce my identity card, to which I then said I did not have it in my possession by it was at a particular house in Rockville, house number 2772. This house was the house that we used as one of our hide-outs with some of my MK cadres.

So when the police allowed or agreed to take me to this particular house in order, with the sole aim of presenting my identity document, this was the only chance that I seized because this enabled me to escape. I knew in Rockville I had some arms stashed somewhere inside the house and my primary aim was to escape from these policemen and I could have escaped without killing this security policeman, but when I had retrieved my gun inside the house, this policeman also had his gun out pointed at me, so it was either him or myself. So I then fired a shot, most unfortunately he did not retaliate, but he had his gun out and after that I left him and escaped.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was the other policeman at that stage?

MR KOETLE: The other policeman escaped, he did not follow me inside the house because when we reached the door, I slammed the door in his face, so he couldn't enter the house. The gun that I used was not far from the entrance. This was part and parcel of our training that wherever we were, we need to find some concealing places inside the house which were convenient for us, so when I got into the house I quickly retrieved the gun. The deceased policeman did not follow me through the front door, because I used the front door to enter the house. He came in through the back door, so when he came in through the back door, that's when we came face to face and then I fired a shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously the intention of the police was for the one to enter the front door with you and the other one to cover the back.

MR KOETLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you blocked out the front door one.

MR KOETLE: Yes. So I shot this policeman. I don't remember how many times, but I should think it's between 3 and 4 times and when he fell down, I then managed to escape and I went back to Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these members of the South African Police?

MR KOETLE: Yes, they were.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry. Mr Koetle, is that item 7, the theft of the motor vehicle in which you were able to then escape?

MR KOETLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Item 7, you haven't had dealt with by the Amnesty Committee?

MR KOETLE: That is correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So where did you get the vehicle? If you could just briefly tell us about item 7? It says in Zone 2, Meadowlands, but just how you got it.

MR KOETLE: Okay. This happened subsequent to the murder of the security policeman. The policeman was murdered or killed on Friday, if I remember the day ...

CHAIRPERSON: You just mention October 1997.

MR KOETLE: Friday, October 1997, so from Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday I had to lie in hiding and trying to plan my way out, so when I realised that the net was tightening around me and there was no way that I could enlist the service of anyone of my friends or close associates, I then together with one of my comrades, identified this particular vehicle which was parked in a house at Zone 3, Meadowlands.

CHAIRPERSON: Zone 2.

MR KOETLE: Zone 2, thank you Mr Chair. So I, together with my comrade who acted as a back-up to me, he stood outside when I went into the house and then I took out the firearm and told the occupants of the house that I needed a vehicle to escape, I even told them who I was. So I told them that I needed a vehicle because the police were hot on my heels and I wanted to use this as a means of escape, so they gave me the keys. I then requested them to remove all their valuables from the car, whereafter doing so, I then took the car and left my comrade and drove away to Swaziland.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Koetle, you said you even told them who you were. Who did you say you were? What did you tell them?

MR KOETLE: I told them that I was an MK member and I was running away from the police, I needed a vehicle to escape and I couldn't trust anybody to give me a vehicle, so this was the only way.

CHAIRPERSON: And your comrade, who was he?

MR KOETLE: Dick Hlongwane.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he also a member of MK?

MR KOETLE: Yes, he was.

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, he's also referred to in item 5 and his application has been dealt with regarding these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Koetle, is there anything you would like to add to what you've already told the Committee? I have no further questions, I'd just like to give you an opportunity if there's anything you would like to add.

MR KOETLE: Thank you Mr Chair for this opportunity. Much as I know and we all know that killing is not a good thing, I want the family of the deceased to understand and to know that that time it was the circumstances that compelled me to do what I did and the police or the Security Police were enforcing apartheid laws upon the black people of South Africa. That time we had no vote, we were relegated as far as people were concerned to the lowest class in South Africa. We never had a vote, nor proper electricity, nor housing facilities. Our fathers had endeavoured through the years, starting from 1912, to talk to the South African racist regime, but all their efforts in talking were to no avail, so joining MK was not joining MK because one wanted to gain or to acquire some material benefits, but my joining MK was primarily to try and send a message to the South African racist regime that what they were doing was not right, we are all human beings in South Africa and we all needed to live as one. So as part and parcel of the operations and activities that I did, today we are enjoying a democracy and I want the family of the victim to understand that, that what I did, I did it in light of what is happening today. Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koetle, these policemen, the one that you shot, were they Security Branch?

MR KOETLE: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Then did you hear later, did you see, or did you know that you killed him?

MR KOETLE: I knew after I'd shot him that this policeman was dead.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, I know I said no further questions, but Mr Koetle, you spoke that you did this in order that all of us may enjoy a new democracy. Would you just share with the Committee what work you are presently doing, what your position is at the moment?

MR KOETLE: Currently, Mr Chair, I'm working for the Johannesburg City Council as an Executive Officer, a department which deals with the administration of Johannesburg city as a whole.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair, there's nothing further. That concludes the evidence of Mr Koetle.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Koetle?

MR MAPOMA: None, Chairperson, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just one for clarity. This vehicle which you took from this house in Meadowlands, did you cross with it into Swaziland or did you abandon it somewhere?

MR KOETLE: I abandoned it somewhere.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koetle, thank you very much. That concludes your testimony.

MR KOETLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS IN ARGUMENT: Briefly Chairperson, I would just like to say that I submit that client has complied with Section 20(a) (b) and (c) of the Act and is therefore entitled to amnesty on the outstanding incidents as listed in his further particulars. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson.

NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll be handing down a written decision in this matter which I expect to be in the near future. It is our policy to do it in writing and for that reason the decision is reserved, but I'm sure it will be out in the very near future. Thank you.

MR KOETLE: Thank you Mr Chair.

MS CAMBANIS: May we be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Ms Cambanis. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma do you want us to take a quick adjournment to let us know when the people are ready?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, perhaps Mr Chairperson, just for two minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I see the applicants but not the legal representatives. Yes, we'll just adjourn for purposes of reconvening shortly.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

RECALL OF EDWARD MOTHIBE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll now resume with the hearing of the applications of Messrs Mothibe and Ndlela.

EDWARD MOTHIBE: (still under affirmation)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo, do you have any questions that you'd like to put to the applicant?

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson, I do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAKONDO: Mr Mothibe you, in your testimony, you said that you had undergone military training and you said you were a Commander, am I correct?

MR MOTHIBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR MAKONDO: As a Commander, what responsibilities did you have?

MR MOTHIBE: To lead.

MR MAKONDO: Can you "expantiate" a bit on leading?

MR MOTHIBE: When we speak of military commanding, we talk - military leadership includes issue of orders, to analyse the situation, to - that particular group of which you are in command at that particular time, to make sure that they are always under discipline and then again to observe as to whether they execute the instructions they have been given.

MR MAKONDO: Would I be correct if I say before a mission is carried out you have to ascertain the information that you have with you?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAKONDO: Generally, how do you go about ascertaining the information you have?

MR MOTHIBE: Our present situation or the situation then in South Africa was different from the one which was in exile, because inside the country we were not operating on our own and again we were not free, so therefore it was difficult because we were not operating legally and then we would not be able to investigate freely, because we were doing our things illegally.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think what Mr Makondo's asked you, you said that you do confirm or ascertain the information given to you and now he's asked you: "Well how do you do that?" and you've said: "Well it was difficult because we were acting illegally", but did you confirm the information you received and if so, how did you do it?

MR MOTHIBE: It will be difficult to confirm as to whether the information given is correct or not, because for example if you say a person is a spy, you need to infiltrate, you've got to do surveillance and those things need the person who was operating legally, not a person who was operating illegally.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying that you didn't confirm the information you received because it was difficult to do so?

MR MOTHIBE: In other words I would say more of it was to believe the comrades who gave information, that is how I confirmed the information, I believed the comrades who gave us the information.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. And you also talked of accountability. Can you expantiate how do you go about being accountable as a Commander?

MR MOTHIBE: When you speak of accountability we refer to that anything which happens you've got to be able to explain or interpret the way it is.

MR MAKONDO: In your papers you said you were placed at the jurisdiction of Hillbrow, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question.

MR MAKONDO: In the papers you said you were placed in the jurisdiction of Hillbrow as a Commander.

MR MOTHIBE: In Hillbrow I was not a Commander there, I was there - I was staying in a transit house because that is the place where we put our materials there.

MR MAKONDO: And you have said that personally you did not know Mr Kotelo, am I correct?

MR MOTHIBE: I said I did not know him personally but I had information about Mr Kotelo.

MR MAKONDO: You also did not know the two police that you have just met on the day, correct?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct, Chairperson, it was for the first time I saw on that particular day.

MR MAKONDO: Now under what conditions would you give the kind of instructions that you gave?

MR MOTHIBE: It was because of the situation that was reigning at that particular day.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know the difference between COSAS, PASO, AND, PAC?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct, Chairperson, I do.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know that COSAS only aligns itself with ANC, but it's not a subsidiary of ANC?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say it's like a mother and a child, you never separate a mother from her child, they stay in one family, or they are part of the same family.

MR MAKONDO: I'm asking you because you said when PASO started gaining power in kwaThema you were worried, whereas the incident that you are talking about happened in Daveyton. How do you reconcile the two?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Makondo, perhaps you can assist me, I'm not from this part of the world. I've heard, I know of kwaThema and Daveyton and the East Rand, but geographically how far apart are they, or whereabout - where is kwaThema, Springs?

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, kwaThema is in Springs.

CHAIRPERSON: And where is Daveyton?

MR MAKONDO: Daveyton is in Benoni.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would be the difference between the two, more or less?

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, with the assistance of my client, it's around 35 kilometres difference.

CHAIRPERSON: And in between the two places, it's built up, it's populated, it's not veld? It's urban development the whole way?

MR MAKONDO: At some stage there is some ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But it's basically developed area?

MR MAKONDO: It is a developed area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I'm not calling you as a witness, but I think we just need that information.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mothibe the question put to you by Mr Makondo was that you said that you were worried about PASO gaining power in kwaThema, but the incident, the killing of Mr Kotelo took place in Daveyton. How do you reconcile that?

MR MOTHIBE: As I've said earlier that these things happened in Daveyton and kwaThema and one of our comrades was killed and that is Erasmus Mawele in Daveyton.

CHAIRPERSON: But what's that - I think the thrust of Mr Makondo's question was, what does the fact that PASO was gaining power in kwaThema have anything to do with the deceased, Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: In Daveyton and kwaThema where we were working together within the ANC's structures, there was a relationship in Daveyton and kwaThema. COSAS in Daveyton was working together with COSAS in kwaThema, during funerals, or during meetings and occasions, even in exchanging material. If they're running short of material we'll go to them and then if they are running short of material, they will come to us, therefore we were working hand-in-hand, there was a working relationship between two townships or two areas.

MR MAKONDO: Do you remember when was your meeting, the first meeting you held which led to your decision to execute you initiatives on the 1st of August 1993, the prior meeting?

CHAIRPERSON: If you can't remember the date if you can give an approximation of the time, how long before it was before the 1st of August, one week, two weeks, a month, six months?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say it's the period of a week.

MR MAKONDO: When did you go and see - when did you visit the Shell House to see the leaders?

MR MOTHIBE: It's two months back.

MR MAKONDO: No, I'm saying, reporting to them the information that you said you reported about Mr Kotelo.

MR MOTHIBE: It's two months back.

MR MAKONDO: Who did you meet first, Peter Mokaba or Jackie Selebe?

MR MOTHIBE: I met Jackie Selebe for the first time, then for a second occasion I met Peter Mokaba.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, when did you first receive information concerning Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: I received the information about Mr Kotelo, I don't remember when but it is somewhere in February or March.

MR MAKONDO: In the meeting in which you decided to act, who was present?

MR MOTHIBE: My comrades were there, that is Silverman Kubheka, those who accompanied me to Shell House ...(indistinct)

MR MAKONDO: In the meeting is there someone who was senior to you in the military unit?

MR MOTHIBE: Members of MK.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question Mr Makondo asked, at that meeting, the one that was a week before, approximately a week before when you decided to take action, who was - was there anyone senior to you at that meeting?

MR MAKONDO: There was one whom we were equal in terms of positions and responsibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that Fanie?

MR MOTHIBE: It's Silverman Kubheka.

MR MAKONDO: After the meeting you said it was entirely your initiative and your decision to attack Mr Kotelo, is it correct?

MR MOTHIBE: We all supported the decision, but I took the responsibility of the ...(indistinct)

MR MAKONDO: I understood you to say you came with the idea and the plan.

MR MOTHIBE: During the discussions we sought the solution of what to do with the situation, then the suggestion came that a unit should be formed, which will deal with Mr Kotelo and then again a person was sought who would volunteer, then I volunteered that I would form that unit, then after forming the unit, it would continue with the mission.

MR MAKONDO: Now who were you discussing this with to form the unit?

MR MOTHIBE: Together with my comrades, Fanie was present, Silverman Kubheka was present. We were four to five in number.

JUDGE MOTATA: Were you not a unit yet?

MR MOTHIBE: We were members of the MK, we were not a unit.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you. You said also in your testimony that there was a group at the location which would identify obstacles and you further said "Therefore I take it that Mr Kotelo was identified by that group", am I correct?

MR MOTHIBE: According to the information as after - as to the identification of obstacle, Mr Kotelo was identified as a person who was helping PASO financially and legally and Dr Skosana.

MR MAKONDO: My question is, he was identified by that group, or is it by you?

MR MOTHIBE: He was identified by members of the ANC and COSAS.

CHAIRPERSON: Which members? Members from which area?

MR MOTHIBE: Daveyton, within Daveyton area.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, which section of Daveyton, because Daveyton township, it's a big township.

MR MOTHIBE: In Daveyton we were operating under one mother body, regardless of zones which were there.

JUDGE MOTATA: In other words, the whole of Daveyton?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say Daveyton ANC members and COSAS.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed Mr Makondo.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, if I can just get some more information on this. But can you try make it clear, where were you when you received this information for the first time, that Mr Kotelo was helping PASO with money and legal assistance?

MR MOTHIBE: At that time I was from Hillbrow. I went to Daveyton. When I arrived there I went to visit my comrades. I found them in a meeting, then I went to the meeting. That is where I was approached and I was given that information. I went back to Hillbrow and when I went back again, I found the same situation still existing.

ADV SANDI: Who gave you this information? Give us the name please.

MR MOTHIBE: The person who came with that information is Makana Moloi who was a member of the Executive Committee of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: Who else was present when Makana Moloi gave you this information?

MR MOTHIBE: There were many comrades. Skeer was present, comrade Skeer, he's now working at the Regional Office.

ADV SANDI: Did you believe that what was being said about Mr Kotelo was true?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say I trusted the Comrades and then again I was loyal to them, then I believed that they were loyal to me and therefore they would give me the correct information.

ADV SANDI: If someone could not like Mr Kotelo, someone who was say jealous of him, had come to you and say Mr Kotelo was doing this and that, how would you have known?

MR MOTHIBE: It would be difficult for me to know because I accepted the information in faith.

ADV SANDI: Did you at any stage ever feel that there was a need for you to confirm the correctness of this information about Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: It would be difficult to confirm because I went to the office to inform them, then they told me to wait because they told me that they would refer the matter to comrade Africa who was a member of the Peace Forum, because those are the ones who could have confirmed the information, but they did not do that. When I analysed the information, I was obliged to do something about the situation.

ADV SANDI: Now when you went to the offices to report this about Mr Kotelo, was it your intention to confirm the allegations that were being made about him?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Is there anything else that you did to try and confirm the allegations being made about Mr Kotelo?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question, we missed part of it.

ADV SANDI: Is there anything else that you did to try and confirm the allegations that were being made about Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: Because I had trust and then I believed in the comrades and the spirit of patriotism, I accepted the information in faith as it came.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Makondo, I'm sorry about that.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. You said you went to Shell House to report initially in February/March and you executed your ideas in August, so between that period, what were you doing?

MR MOTHIBE: I was not permanent in Daveyton. I used to go there and there were a lot of things which were happening there, as I mentioned about the IFP issues. I was involved in those issues, therefore we were not dealing with one particular incident, for example about Kotelo's issue or about Dr Skosana or anyone, there were a lot of events happening there, therefore we were out-stretched.

MR MAKONDO: You said in your evidence that from the information you got, you thought maybe he was a PAC member, am I correct?

MR MOTHIBE: When I said perhaps he could have been a member of the PAC, it is because the way information was brought to me is that he supported PASO financially and with legal assistance. There is no way a person can sacrifice for a certain institution without participating fully in it. When I analysed, I concluded that this shows that he is a member of the PAC because he was taking money from his pocket to the PAC and then again in Court he was defending them, that is why I came to that conclusion.

JUDGE MOTATA: By defending members of PASO for transgressing the law, does it necessarily point to the fact that you must be belonging to that organisation?

MR MAKONDO: But when we examined the financial assistance, it gives a different picture that there is a conspiracy between himself and the organisation.

JUDGE MOTATA: When he rendered this financial assistance, to do what when giving PASO money? What was PASO supposed to do with the money?

MR MOTHIBE: I asked myself that question, then I didn't come with a clear answer but the way it was stated at that particular time that they used to go there to ask for money, he used to sponsor them financially. The only thing which came to my mind is that for them to have weapons, maybe they used that money from Mr Kotelo to buy firearms and such materials.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask your source of information how they came to know that Mr Kotelo was financially supporting members of PASO? I mean you don't do this sort of thing in public, giving money out to people, it's normally done between people concerned behind a closed door.

MR MOTHIBE: It is true Chairperson, I did ask. It appears even in my application that somebody was found, when he was interrogated he came with that information.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know, or was there any incident or a case which you can relate to the Committee, the one you know that Mr Kotelo was representing a PASO members?

MR MOTHIBE: As I have stated that, in regard to Mr Kotelo, it is the information I received, I know nothing personally about Mr Kotelo. I only acted because of the information I received from my fellow comrades.

JUDGE MOTATA: May I interpose here, just for better flow of explanations. You said in your evidence that you returned inside the country in 1992, can you recall that?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Approximately when in 1992 did you return to the country, South Africa in other words?

MR MOTHIBE: I arrived around March or April in 1992.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo, we're making it difficult for you with all these interventions, but before it slips my mind, Mr Mothibe, we sit and listen to many, many, many applications and in many of these applications applicants have said different things at trials and it's usually they've been tortured by the police to make a statement and they say: "Well I said it different in that statement because I was tortured by the police and I had to say that and it's wrong. What I'm saying now is the truth." I'm sure you've heard that before. Why then did you believe in information received from somebody who had been captured by the comrades and forced to talk?

MR MOTHIBE: The situation in the township is a unique situation from the situation which was experienced by legalised institutions like the police and others. This situation about the struggle in the township it's different because everything we did, we were driven by anger which prevailed at that particular time and mostly because one of your members has been killed in the process, it becomes difficult to analyse the situation with sobriety, with the ...(indistinct) of sobriety, because at that time we did not have knowledge about legal concepts or legal matters, we were ...(indistinct) as normal people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mothibe, I'm going to refer to your applications. I've seen that they're most - I'm going to use the typed versions of your application and I realise that you have signed the hand-written ones which makes me believe that you know the content thereof and you confirm them to be true, am I correct?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say yes.

MR MAKONDO: Page 28 of the record, there is a letter you wrote I think to the TRC. The last paragraph thereof on page 28 of the record, you're saying that

"As the ANC Youth League we wanted to gain strength in our district and I, ...(indistinct) Mothibe wanted to gain popularity and respect of the youth as a member of the MK and as a cadre."

How true is that?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got it Ms Makhubele? Page 28, the last paragraph.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Honourable Chair, he wants to confirm with the ...

CHAIRPERSON: The original.

MS MAKHUBELE: The original.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, probably just afterwards. No, it's not. Yes, here it is, page 31 is the original. it's the same up to the word cadre. There should be a full stop and then a new sentence after cadre. Do you see it? It's the same. I'm telling you Ms Makhubele. Page 31, have you got it?

MS MAKHUBELE: If you interpret it, but the wording is different.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's read it from 31, forget the typed version.

"As the ANC Youth League, we wanted to go and strengthen our district and I, Edward Mothibe, wanted to gain popularity and respect of the youth as a member of MK and as a cadre."

Now what Mr Makondo's asking you, is that correct?

MR MOTHIBE: The way it has been interpreted there, it sounds different. I was trying to put it the other way.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, he has merely read it, he hasn't interpreted anything at this stage, he has merely read it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: I've just read what you've written on page 31. Please Ms Makhubele, have you shown him page 31? Could you show him page 31? Is that - all Mr Makondo wants to know is what you said in the last paragraph, is that what you wanted to achieve?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say it's not what I wanted to say. Its not the way I wanted the writer to put it, so he did not put it the way I wanted it to be.

MR MAKONDO: Am I correct to say then that it should not be read this way, it should be read in any other way but this way and if in another way, can you at least explain to the Committee?

MR MOTHIBE: The person who was helping me to write this letter, put it in an arrogant way and that was not my intention. What I was trying to say is that as a member of the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe, I tried to make sure that I would defend members of the MK, ANC, COSAS and SDUs so that I would be loyal to them.

MR MAKONDO: On page 29, ...(indistinct) ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's probably better to deal with the written one, page 32, because it's easy to read and then there won't be any difficulties relating to typing errors.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. On page 32 the first paragraph, the fifth line, you say that you went to see Comrade Jackie and Peter Mokaba but you received no reply from them, whereas in your chief evidence you said they said they will pass the information over to comrade Africa who will take it to the Peace Forum and it will be dealt with from there. So these two conflicting statements, can you reconcile them?

MR MOTHIBE: Comrade Africa was a member of the Peace Forum. I said Comrade Jackie said the Peace Forum would resolve the matter. After it has been dealt with, it will bring a report. After that I went there for the second time, I met ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think Mr Makondo's asking you to repeat your evidence, what he's asking is why didn't you mention the Peace Forum and Comrade Africa in the letter? You see on the fifth line you just said

"We went to Comrade Jackie and Comrade Peter Mokaba, but we received no reply."

What Mr Makondo's asking is why was there no mention there about Comrade Africa? Although I might say, Mr Makondo, what we're dealing with here is a three page letter as opposed to an hour's evidence-in-chief. If you wanted to have everything that he said in evidence-in-chief in here, it would have to be half the thickness of this bundle to fit it all in, so - it's not an unfair question, but what I'm saying is it's not a bull point.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. I just want to put clarity onto it.

MR MOTHIBE: It is not supposed to be there because if you can look at my application, there are about four applications and in those applications, when I put the situation I would, if there is another information which is short, I will try to add on that. In all my applications or in all my letters we were trying to cover the general situation which included my encounter with Jackie Selebe and others. In short I would say, even if that issue does not arise from my statement, but other issues do so as to cover that information which is there and which was needed.

MR MAKONDO: You say also ...

INTERPRETER: Can you give me time to drink some water please?

JUDGE MOTATA: Whilst he's drinking water, could I pose this one to him? Now this, according to what you have written here, there was this tension, conflict between PASO and COSAS and you say again the ANC Youth League interfered. How did they interfere in this conflict?

MR MOTHIBE: It is true. It is like that. ANC Youth League intervened in the conflict between PASO and COSAS. We intervened in that situation.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to know, when you say probably even intervened, whichever way, but there was this conflict between PASO and COSAS and the ANC Youth League intervened. What were they doing with the conflict between PASO and COSAS, the ANC Youth League?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say ANC Youth League assisted COSAS so that - during that conflict.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you would now continue with the normal duties of the SDU protecting the community against the attack by IFP because the situation has now been taken care of between PASO and COSAS?

MR MOTHIBE: I wouldn't say the situation was resolved because the situation continued.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you as an MK member, wore two hats in this instance to assist COSAS and at the same time, drive the SDUs against the attacks of the IFP?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. On the same page, I still want clarity, page 32, the eleventh line. You say that

"We traced the situation and found out that Dr Skosana and Mr Kotelo were involved in the tension and we decided that if we can do away with one of them, the situation will be fertile for us and the tension would cease"

but at the same time you said that you never had time to make the assessment and to verify the information. Can you reconcile the two?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say to interpret a particular word and to say, I would say to verify and to make a follow-up you'd confirm from somebody by information to say you must verify that particular information so that we will have a proof, so that the trust you have on that particular person would be sustained.

MR MAKONDO: Would I be correct if I say in terms of what you said, you said your accountability and responsibility. You did not verify the information that you got personally, but you personally took the initiative to eliminate or to kill Mr Kotelo.

MR MOTHIBE: I would say when you talk about accountability, it's a word which says you do a thing then tomorrow you've got to stand for it, so that you'll be able, when you report, you'll report about what you know you have done. When I speak of initiative, I speak of a thing I observe at that particular time, the step which would be in accordance with the situation would be this one. There's a difference between these two words.

ADV SANDI: Just one thing related to this. When you were asked a question as to what were your responsibilities as an MK Commander, you said one of them was to analyse situations, but now if you simply accepted things that were being said to you about people without investigating and confirmed them, how were you doing this duty of analysing situations?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say what I was doing is to find out from the comrades as to whether what is their ideas, then because I trusted them and I received the information and I acted on the information, I was not operating legally or lawfully, because I'd be able to infiltrate and do other things. Each and every information which came, I would analyse or examine the information personally and try to see to it as to whether it is the truth. If I trust that information, I would act on it.

ADV SANDI: We know that you were not operating legally and openly. Clearly many of the activities you were involved in as a member of MK were against the law, but what I'm asking you is, do you know that people do lie? People can lie for a whole lot of reasons, do you know that?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes that is true.

ADV SANDI: How did you deal with that? If someone came to you and said so-and-so is this and that, do you mean to say that simply because this person was your comrade, you would not bother to do anything to verify that allegation?

MR MOTHIBE: The steps that I took, what I did, I went to the office, I reported that to the office and they said that they would refer that to the Peace Forum and Comrade Africa was in that Peace Forum. I took all the steps to show that I was really concerned about the situation that prevailed there.

ADV SANDI: And when Moloi came to you to tell you about Mr Kotelo, did he tell you how much Mr Kotelo had contributed to PASO, did he tell you that?

MR MOTHIBE: No, he did not tell me about the amount, he just said to me he was helping PASO, but because I trusted my fellow comrades, I accepted that to be the truth.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you how he was giving this money over to PASO? Was he depositing the money into a bank account or was he giving the money to one of the members of PASO? How was he handing this money over to PASO? Did he tell you that?

MR MOTHIBE: He did not tell me that the money was deposited in the banking account, but whenever PASO had financial problems or needed any assistance, they would go to him. How they confronted him, I did not know, but what I know is that the information was right that the members of PASO will go to him and ask for assistance.

ADV SANDI: How did he say he got this information that he was giving money to PASO? Did he tell you?

MR MOTHIBE: He told me that they caught one member of PASO and they interrogated him to get information from him and he gave them that information.

ADV SANDI: Was there anyone else giving money to PASO?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, they said Dr Skosana also assisted PASO.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but why was Dr Skosana not killed as well in the same way as Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: I have mentioned somewhere in my application that I went there personally and when we arrived there, we pretended that one of us was injured. We knocked at the door, but they did not open and we tried to hide in the surrounding and we did not see anybody.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Makondo. Sorry, we keep on interrupting you.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Contrary to what you are saying, in the application you said, page 32 that I read out to you, you said you decided as a group, I hope, you decided that if you eliminate one of them, the situation will be fertile for you. Why did you pick on Kotelo and not Dr Skosana?

MR MOTHIBE: I have said that we also went to Dr Skosana's place. We tried to knock but no one opened the door. We were going to pretend as if one of us was injured and we hung around in the surroundings and nobody came out and we left.

MR MAKONDO: Maybe my question was not clear. Here you said you picked one, but now you are saying you went to both of them. I want you to reconcile the two.

MR MOTHIBE: Somewhere in my application form, I have stated that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's the next sentence, because he says

"I Edward Mothibe, personally failed to hit Mr Skosana until of Sunday morning when I came from Hillbrow. I personally went to Kotelo."

I don't know what that means, perhaps you can ask. Perhaps we should look at it in the context of the previous sentence, I don't know. What did you mean by that Mr Mothibe? If you take a look, do you see that there? Page 32, it says:

"I Edward Mothibe, personally failed to hit Mr Skosana until of Sunday morning when I came from Hillbrow."

What does that mean?

MR MOTHIBE: I mean that I failed to shoot Mr Skosana.

CHAIRPERSON: But what was that: "until of Sunday morning"? Oh you mean you failed to hit him, even by Sunday you hadn't got him? Yes, I understand. Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Perhaps if I could put my question clearer. I was saying in the statement above, line 13, you say they decided that if they could do away with one, however they made an attempt on both of them, according to what he says now, that's why I wanted clarity.

MR MOTHIBE: We started at Mr Skosana's place and we went to Mr Kotelo, that shows that one of them was supposed to have been shot. If we had managed to get Mr Skosana, we would have shot him, but because we could not find him, we went to Mr Kotelo and we found him and he was shot

MR MAKONDO: The Sunday that you are talking about, you said when you got there at Mr Kotelo's house, you with another comrade, you got the information that he was going to Pretoria. From whom did you get the information?

MR MOTHIBE: We found somebody outside, he was washing a white car.

MR MAKONDO: Was it a he or a she?

MR MOTHIBE: It was a man.

MR MAKONDO: But in your written statement you said you found the wife. The typed version is 42 Chairperson, I don't know what is the - I'll check the hand-written. It's on page 41 of the typed version. Thank you Chairperson. 44, the second paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Just read it into the record.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. You said, page 44, the second paragraph

"From thereafter we gathered, the day before I and other comrades we went to Kotelo's house, we found his wife Monica and said to her we wanted to see Kotelo and she responds to us that you wouldn't see him because he was to go to Pretoria tomorrow"

JUDGE MOTATA: He would go to Pretoria tomorrow and he will be back late at night.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Mothibe, what's being put to you is, today you said somebody who was washing a car, a man, told you that information but here in the statement you quite clearly say that it was the wife of the deceased.

MR MOTHIBE: The truth is that we did not meet his wife. I think it is a mistake made by the person who helped me write this letter. In truth the person that we met outside was a man who was washing the white car.

JUDGE MOTATA: But the man who was helping you to write out this, how would he know about Monica?

MR MOTHIBE: I explained what happened that day to him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you see the wife on the day when you went and found this man washing the car outside?

MR MOTHIBE: I don't remember me seeing Monica.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, you may proceed, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mothibe, what's the level of education you have?

MR MOTHIBE: I went as far as Standard 8.

CHAIRPERSON: And can you read and write?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I can write, but my writing is not legible enough.

CHAIRPERSON: Who actually wrote, let's take this letter that starts on page 43 and goes through to page 45 which was written in 1977 on the 22nd of April, who actually wrote this?

MR MOTHIBE: I was helped by my fellow comrade at Leeukop.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your writing?

MR MOTHIBE: No, it's not my writing.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now if you look at the signature on page 45, Edward Mothibe, is that you who wrote that "Thank you. Edward Mothibe"?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, the signature is mine.

JUDGE MOTATA: Then just below "Thank you. Edward Mothibe" there is written in full, not signature.

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I do see that.

JUDGE MOTATA: You wrote that Edward Mothibe?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, it's myself.

JUDGE MOTATA: But if you look at the handwriting, unless I'm mistaken, just let's have a look at page 45 and you look at the handwriting and the person who wrote Edward Mothibe, it's almost similar, even though I'm not a handwriting expert.

CHAIRPERSON: It's remarkably similar. Turn to page 19 Mr Mothibe. Do you see Edward Mothibe written there? Who wrote that one?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I do see it, it's myself who wrote there.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you take a look at that and keep your thumb on page 45 and look at Edward Mothibe there, are you saying you also wrote that one, because they're completely different?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I see the handwriting is different. I would explain it this way. I do not actually understand what is happening here, because I have written many applications.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, we're just asking about the letter. You said that the letter on page 43 to 45 was written by a comrade in Leeukop who assisted you, right? That's what you said.

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

CHAIRPERSON: And then you said that, but notwithstanding that you wrote Edward Mothibe on page 45, but that Edward Mothibe is completely different from the Edward Mothibe as it is written on page 19 and it's quite clear from - even without expert evidence, that the person who wrote Edward Mothibe on page 45 is the person who wrote the letter because it's exactly the same writing.

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So, again I ask you, did you write Edward Mothibe on page 45?

MR MOTHIBE: No, it's not me.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. On the same page, page 44, the last but one paragraph, you say

"The following day about 12h00 midnight, they came to me and told me that the mission has been pulled. Lucky, Kotelo have been killed and two policemen are shot (I think), but they are not killed."

But in your evidence you said that you were told that the two police, one was killed, one was shot on the leg.

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I did say so.

MR MAKONDO: How do you reconcile these two?

MR MOTHIBE: There must be that difference because this thing happened a long time ago and the information at court makes me - confused me, I do not really understand what is happening here.

MR MAKONDO: The last two lines of page 44 and the first two lines of page 45

"The same night of informing me that they have pulled the mission, the two comrades, Fanie and Colin, (I cannot read further the last word, Chairperson) ... entered inside the house and supported all to me, accompanied by two females."

What do you mean by that?

MR MOTHIBE: I am saying that when they arrived, they were accompanied by a woman comrade, it was the first time that I saw her. We spent the night together and then Fanie explained everything to me and the following day we left to Daveyton.

MR MAKONDO: I'm asking you because my interpretation and my intention is "and support all to me", I'm linking it to the letter I read to you earlier where you said that you wanted popularity and support.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Chairperson, can I? I understand the sentence, so I can explain it to my client here.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you could just repeat what you're putting Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson. I'm saying my interpretation of this sentence linked to what I read out before where he said he wanted popularity and fame and support, I'm reading it into this sentence where he said "the support all to me". That's why I want clarity on that, I don't want to misinterpret it, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) right at the top there is "reported all to me."

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson. However it is the thing is that the attention was to him.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he was the leader, you can use that in argument I think. I mean he told us that he ordered them to come to Hillbrow and report to him.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson, I will ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's just a question of discipline.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Can I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to clear up one thing. In this letter you refer to Mr Kotelo as Lucky Kotelo. Where did you get that from? You see it's on page 44, fifth last line and the next line.

"Lucky Kotelo has been killed."

Where did you get the name Lucky from, because we were told this morning that the name is Arnold and not Lucky. Do you see it there Ms Makhubele, you got it?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: All I'm asking you Mr Mothibe is why was he called Lucky? Where did you get it from?

MR MOTHIBE: The name Lucky belonged to one of the policemen who was shot, the one who was shot at that time, at that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: So this is a mistake here, where it says Lucky Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one little thing again. At page 44 where you refer to the wife of Mr Kotelo as Monica, where did you get that name from?

MR MOTHIBE: I learned of this name in Court.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Still on your visit to the house. So you say you didn't find the wife? Did I get it clear to say you did not find the wife when you went there?

MR MOTHIBE: No, we found somebody who was washing the car outside.

MR MAKONDO: What time was it when you went there? You said the morning, what time was it roughly?

MR MOTHIBE: It was between 8 and 9.

MR MAKONDO: You said you were told that he was going to Pretoria and coming back at night, so what did you do with that information?

MR MOTHIBE: I was told that he was going to go to Pretoria. he would go to Pretoria and he will come late at night and I took this information to the comrades.

MR MAKONDO: Did you give any instruction linking to that information?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that's correct.

MR MAKONDO: Explain what instruction you gave.

MR MOTHIBE: The instructions that I gave, or I deployed the comrades. I told Fanie to make sure that he looks for the car and the other comrades should also help him. They should look for Mr Kotelo's car when he arrives. I also gave them information concerning the two policemen, which is Zweli and Lucky. I told them to be aware and make sure that everything will run smooth, they should leave nothing behind and they should carry out their instructions as fast as they can and they should leave no evidence behind.

MR MAKONDO: According to your instruction, how did you say they should go about with the killing?

MR MOTHIBE: I said that they should kidnap him and along the way they should shoot him.

MR MAKONDO: Mr Mothibe I have a different instruction, a different picture to what you are painting and Ms Kotelo, she's going to give evidence. Amongst others, she's going to say that the information they received of going to Pretoria, came about 3 and not in the morning, what do you say to that?

MR MOTHIBE: I got that information in the morning because at 3 o'clock in the afternoon I was not in Daveyton. I left Daveyton around 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Makondo are you saying the Kotelo's received the information to go to Pretoria at 3?

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, it was actually an emergency they were attending.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja I want just to correct it because the answer does not relate to the question put by you.

CHAIRPERSON: No the question was he said that that was put, it was actually put to him that this is what's going to be said and then he just confirmed his evidence, saying that he went there at 9 on the morning and at 3 he had already left Daveyton and that he left at 2.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Also in her testimony she's going to testify that at the time that her late husband was hijacked, as it appeared in the court record or in the Judgment, you were there, you were instrumental and actually you were the person who was talking to both of them. What do you say to that?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say that is not the truth.

MR MAKONDO: She's also going to testify that you ordered the husband to take off his leather jacket, his watch, his wallet and you took the keys that he had in his hand. What do you say about that?

MR MOTHIBE: That is not the truth.

MR MAKONDO: Also she's going to testify that you found herself, her late husband and the child inside the yard. You took the items that I've already mentioned. You left, but you could not start the car and you came back for the husband and you ordered him to come and start the car for you. What do you say about that?

MR MOTHIBE: That is not the truth because at that time I was not in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: This - I've asked it before, I want to ask it again. You said in your evidence that you volunteered that, when they were talking about forming a unit to deal with Mr Kotelo, you volunteered to form one and that you were the Commander of the unit. We also know that you got military training etc. Why - on what basis would you not, as Commander, participate in the actual operation? That's - because you also said one of the things of being Commander was the question of leadership, one of the aspects, leadership and responsibility, now you're saying you were the Commander and you send off the others, but you don't go there. Why didn't you go, as a Commander, on the operation?

MR MOTHIBE: It is because Fanie was also a member of the MK. I gave him the responsibility to lead that unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just asking why? Why didn't you say: "Fanie you go back to Hillbrow, I'm the leader here, I'll take this, I'll show..." I'm just asking why? One wants to understand your reasoning in doing that, in taking that course of action.

MR MOTHIBE: It is because I had other duties that I had to perform in Hillbrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

JUDGE MOTATA: Just before this escapes my mind, Chairperson, it's linked to this, that at this juncture there was this conflict between COSAS and PASO and you couldn't resolve this conflict because rumour had it that Mr Kotelo and Dr Skosana and Mr Kotelo in particular was providing financial assistance, you recall, to PASO and also defending them in Court. You recall that part of your evidence?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that is true.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now when you were resolving this conflict between COSAS and PASO, what were you resolving them as, because when we understood you, your main duty of going to Daveyton was to form these SDUs, but in the process there was this conflict you wanted to sort out and bring PASO under control. What were you operating as, then?

MR MOTHIBE: I operated as a member of the MK.

JUDGE MOTATA: The others, with whom were you trying to control PASO?

MR MOTHIBE: That's myself and my fellow comrades, like Comrade Fanie and Comrade Silverman Kubheka and Comrade Thabiso. We were all trying to resolve the situation, to normalise the situation in that township.

JUDGE MOTATA: How were you doing it?

MR MOTHIBE: We were trying to normalise the situation. We were trying to resolve the situation by arming the COSAS.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. And I was still busy with - you said you found the name Monica in Court. What else that you have in your application which you picked up in Court?

MR MOTHIBE: There are many things that I heard in Court. One of the things that I heard in Court concerned the material that is alleged that I took, that is the watch, the wallet and others and that the child was also involved. Those are some of the things that I heard for the first time in Court.

MR MAKONDO: Is the issue of going to Pretoria not one of the issues you picked up in Court?

MR MOTHIBE: No.

MR MAKONDO: The issue of the child, can you explain what are you talking about? Do you mean the witness who was in Court who said he was kidnapped by you in the car of Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: I refer to Monica's child.

MR MAKONDO: What do you say about the young woman who was a witness in Court who said she was kidnapped by you and your comrades in Mr Kotelo's car?

MR MOTHIBE: She was once my girlfriend. I would not kidnap somebody that I had a relationship with. I think she was used by the police to implicate us in this case.

CHAIRPERSON: At your trial, Mr Mothibe, did you raise the fact that this was a political crime?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I did say that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you raised - you said that you were an SDU and it was - you told the Court what you're telling us?

MR MOTHIBE: What I'm saying here today is what I said in Court that I am the member of the MK.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know that you said that you were a member of the MK. I'm talking about the actual commission of the crime, the murder of Mr Kotelo and the attempted murders, did you tell the Court what you told us?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I did, but I did not accept that I am the person who planned that. I only said that I knew about the incident, but I did not mention that I took part in the planning of the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I'm just looking - we don't - on page 72 it says that one of the factors taken into account in the sentencing was that the accused persons, three of you had been drinking that night.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before he answers, Honourable Chair, apparently there's an issue he wants to address me on. Can I just ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he's under cross-examination, I don't know, you better ask Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, I will object to that because he's under cross-examination, until we are finished. If he wants to ...(intervention)

MS MAKHUBELE: Can he answer this question, so I can get a chance to talk to him. It's not in relation to this question.

CHAIRPERSON: No but don't you know that when you client's under cross-examination you're not meant to talk to him or her? It's one of the fundamental rules of practice.

MS MAKHUBELE: I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No you can't, Ms Makhubele, you can't consult with your client during cross-examination.

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm not consulting, Honourable Chair, he's raising an objection, it has nothing to do with the questions. I was just trying to understand what his objection is. Can I let him put the objection forward?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let him put it forward, otherwise you compromise yourself.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can I ask him to tell the Committee what his objection is?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you want to say, Mr Mothibe? You see I'm just saying, you can say anything you like, but when you're being questioned by the victim's advocate, it's not proper for you to speak to your lawyer, it's just one of the rules that exist. On page 7 it says one of the factors taken into account in mitigation of sentence was that the people had been drinking that night, you see that, line 7 page 72. Was anybody drunk that you know of, or intoxicated?

MR MOTHIBE: No, no one was drunk in my group. When they arrived at my place, no one was drunk.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: I was still waiting for the applicant to raise an objection to the Committee. Perhaps he should be given a chance to do so, before I continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to say anything Mr Mothibe?

MR MOTHIBE: I will talk about that after we have finished with the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Now you talked of your girlfriend in the late Mr Kotelo's car and her not being kidnapped, whereas you have said you were not there and the other people executed the mission. How do you reconcile these two and also explain what was she doing in the late Mr Kotelo's car.

MR MOTHIBE: I also inquired about that. I also wanted to know what she was doing there but the explanation that I got was that Fanie realised that they needed a shield were they were sitting so that nobody could suspect them.

MR MAKONDO: I don't have clarity. Are you saying your girlfriend came into the car because of Fanie invited her into the car?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that is how Fanie told me because I was also surprised when they arrived at my flat together with her, that is Naledi.

MR MAKONDO: When you say they, it was Fanie and who? Those who came to your flat.

MR MOTHIBE: It was Fanie, my girlfriend and another lady and Colin Mashego.

MR MAKONDO: What had happened to your co-applicant?

MR MOTHIBE: My co-applicant together with Dingane, I told Fanie that they should not know where I stay because the place where I stayed was a safe house and I kept the material there.

MR MAKONDO: But in the sentence, the Court record, it is said that you took part, you were even driving. What do you say about that?

MR MOTHIBE: That is the information used by the police to implicate me in this incident. I could not drive that car because I wasn't present.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now let's just get this clear. When Fanie and Dingane came, got to Hillbrow where you stayed at the flat, what did they tell you? How did they execute the hijacking of the car of Mr Kotelo and taking him along and subsequently killing him and the car to be dumped somewhere in Johannesburg? How were the events related to you?

MR MOTHIBE: They said that they met Mr Kotelo at the gate. They closed the gate and entered the yard and on the passage, they tried to put him into the car. He tried to escape but he could not. They dragged him into the car and after that they drove the car out of the yard and along the way, Fanie took out the firearm and he shot Mr Kotelo and they threw him out and they left to Hillbrow. In Hillbrow, not in Hillbrow but in Johannesburg next to Carlton Centre, they left the car there and they headed to my flat.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did they say that he was alone when this happened?

MR MOTHIBE: He was with Monica and the child.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson. But you said the issue of the child of Mr and Mrs Kotelo's child, you heard it for the first time in Court, now you're saying when they related to you they told that the child was there. How do you clarify and reconcile these two?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I said so, but they stated that, but they did not state all the details. They didn't tell me what happened to the child, but in Court I heard that there was a problem concerning the child.

MR MAKONDO: Let's come to the two policemen. You said you did not know them and you said you were not staying around Daveyton area. Why did you give the information that they should be shot and what made you think that they would be an obstacle?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, personally I did not know them but my co-applicant knew them. He knew one policeman, so I realised that the two policemen would be obstacles, so because my co-applicant stayed in the same area, I believed them about the two policemen.

MR MAKONDO: You said in your evidence that you were worried that when they hear the shots they will react, however according to your instruction, you said Mr Kotelo must be kidnapped and they must leave with him. How do you reconcile these two?

MR MOTHIBE: It can happen that during hijacking one can use force and by using force, you can end up using the firearm or anything that can cause an alarm to other people and make them aware of the situation, that is why I said to them that in case that they use the firearm, they should make sure that the two policemen are not obstacles.

MR MAKONDO: Was it your instructions that they should be killed?

MR MOTHIBE: My instructions were that if they became obstacles, Fanie should decide what he would do and that would depend on the situation at that time. So if he sees it fit that they should be shot, he should do so, but if they are not obstacles then he should continue with the operation that I told him about.

JUDGE MOTATA: What should have happened first? Kill Mr Kotelo or the police? Rather at that very moment hijack Kotelo first, or kill the police first?

MR MOTHIBE: They should have made sure that the policemen are not near Mr Kotelo's place, but if they are in that vicinity, that means the two policemen will be obstacles and they won't be able to carry out the operation.

JUDGE MOTATA: The Court record shows that they were at a shebeen. Was that what happened in Court?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, it was said in Court and it is what Fanie told me. He told me that they were about 150 metres from Mr Kotelo's house at a shebeen.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now and in relation to Mr Kotelo's house, how far were they staying?

MR MOTHIBE: I don't know the other one, but my co-applicant will be able to explain that because he knows them fully and he knows where they were staying at that time.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Mothibe you had discussed the situation when you formed the unit and it came about that these two policemen would be obstacles. In what way were they going to be obstacles if this didn't come out during the discussion that they should also be removed?

MR MOTHIBE: I said they should monitor the situation and find out how far the two policemen are from Mr Kotelo's house, but if they are in that vicinity or near Mr Kotelo's place, they would be obstacles, but if they are not in that vicinity or near Mr Kotelo's house, they should proceed with the operation.

JUDGE MOTATA: I understood you to say after your visitation at the Kotelo's, correct me if I'm mistaken, on your way you saw these two policemen, did I understand you correctly?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that's true.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you were on your way from the Kotelo's house, with whom were you?

MR MOTHIBE: I was with Fanie.

JUDGE MOTATA: And where was your co-applicant? Did you meet him that day?

MR MOTHIBE: He was at Merger's place.

JUDGE MOTATA: And did you tell him about the meeting of the two police?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I told him.

JUDGE MOTATA: And according to your description he could tell you where these police live, or did he see them?

MR MOTHIBE: He said to me he know the other one from my description, that is Lucky.

JUDGE MOTATA: But during the discussion, it now emanated that they both lived in the same vicinity. How did that come about then?

MR MOTHIBE: I met the two policeman the second street from Madela Street and I told him that the two policemen that I met, after I have described them to him, he said he knows one of them and he said to me he knows this policeman, he stays not far from Mr Kotelo's place and then I said to them if it happens that the two policemen are in that vicinity during the execution of that operation, they should make sure that they are not disturbed by these two policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry just let me ask one question. When you say you met the policemen, did you talk to them, or what do you mean when you met the policemen?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I was talking to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Makondo. You know sometimes we've got to clear some few things which crop up in your mind so that you don't forget them, it's not our intention to interrupt your cross-examination. Please bear with us when that happens.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mothibe you said in the planning, the two policemen should be taken care of so that they don't become obstacles and the Chairperson asked you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think he put it the other way around, they must establish if they are obstacles, then something must be done, not that they must be taken care of because they are obstacles. My understanding was that if they're not around there, that's okay, go ahead. If they're obstacles, then something must be done about them.

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson. It's that version that I'm questioning, given that as you explained that there's going to be a hijacking and your worry was that they can hear gun shots and react and you are saying it was supposed to be after that actions that they should be taken care of, in case they react, whereas when it was reported to you it was that they were shot before. Am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you. My understanding of Mr Mothibe's evidence was that if the police were seen to be obstacles before the operation, then they must deal with them, because otherwise they would hear the bullets during the operation. That was my understanding, not that they must do the car hijacking and then hunt for the policemen.

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, I wanted that clarification.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that was quite clear.

MR MAKONDO: Now in taking care of the police, was it your instruction that they should be killed?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I have said earlier that they should do something. If the situation warranted them to do anything, if Fanie realised that the two policemen become obstacles, he will act according to the situation at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: So you left it up to the discretion of Fanie.

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAKONDO: That will be all, Chairperson. Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAKONDO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Makondo. Mr Mapoma do you have anything?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, yes, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Did you have a combat name when you were in exile?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And that combat name, what was it?

MR MOTHIBE: Gills Mosala.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, how do you spell Gills?

MR MOTHIBE: G-I-L-L-S.

MR MAPOMA: And inside the country, during the time when you were inside the country doing these operations, you were no longer using the Gills combat name?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: What name were you using inside the country?

MR MOTHIBE: I was using Skutchu Stimela.

MR MAPOMA: And the name Edward Mothibe, were you using that one as well?

MR MOTHIBE: My real name is Edward Mothibe.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, that real name, you were known by it inside the country, when you were inside the country, is that not correct?

MR MOTHIBE: This is my real name.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what Mr Mapoma is asking you, Mr Mothibe is, at that time were you also using that name openly when you were in the country? That's what he's asking. Did some people know you as Edward Mothibe other than your mother and your relatives and your old schoolmates?

MR MOTHIBE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't use the name, you used Skutchu?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct, Chairperson, I was not using that name.

MR MAPOMA: Why?

MR MOTHIBE: Because we had problems when we returned from exile. There were third force activities which were dealing with members of the MK, that is why I did not use my real name, or my real surname, I used a code name.

MR MAPOMA: But we are talking 1993. 1993, some few months before the election, when the negotiations were taking place into the unification of armed forces, Chris Hani was known as Chris Hani, generally the MK comrades were known by their real names inside the country. The ANC was unbanned, the political climate did not necessitate the combat names any longer. Why? Yours was a combat name.

MR MOTHIBE: I would say when you speak of Chris Hani, I knew of Chris Hani before I left the country. It was used long time before 1993.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, please get me correctly, I'm just making an example. The point I'm saying is that no combat names were used then. Everything was in the open now in 1993. Why are you saying that you were using combat name?

MR MOTHIBE: What I would say is in 1992 to 1993, that was the worst period where the third force were prevailing. The third force which was dealing with members of the MK. For example the death of Chris Hani, it is because of that situation, during that situation a lot of events happened. Wouter Basson was involved. I can quote several people but those who were involved and I can go further to try to explain the situation. I remember during the negotiations in ...

CHAIRPERSON: We can accept, Mr Mothibe, we accept that during that period, particularly on the East Rand, the political struggle was still quite intense, very intense in fact and there was a lot of third force activity around, it's on record.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, thank you Mr Mothibe, but I suppose your colleagues, you as MK cadres, knew each other. Your name was known, your real name, by then, isn't it so?

MR MOTHIBE: Members of MK knew only my MK name, that is Gills Mosala.

MR MAPOMA: Now, let us deal with the incident, the first incident where you shot a policeman when you robbed him of his firearm. As I understand your evidence, you grabbed him and somebody took his firearm, is that correct?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And thereafter he was shot.

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Why was he shot?

MR MOTHIBE: The reason for his shooting is that the person who took his gun panicked and he pulled the trigger.

JUDGE MOTATA: At what stage did he pull the trigger? Are you saying the firearm was cocked whilst it was in his possession?

MR MOTHIBE: I would say this thing happened very quickly, because I just hear a gun shot, that's why I stated that he panicked because our objective was to disarm him at that particular time.

JUDGE MOTATA: What you're saying happened quickly is that he took out the firearm and he cocked it and shot at the policeman?

MR MOTHIBE: I didn't believe that he cocked the firearm because we grabbed that person quickly and he took the gun very quickly then immediately I heard the gun shot.

JUDGE MOTATA: Were you people armed when you accosted the policeman?

MR MOTHIBE: No Chairperson we were not armed.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: So the shooting of that man was actually not your objective. The objective was just to disarm him and take the firearm for your purposes, is this so?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Then am I fair to you when I'm saying that you had no political objective at all to attempt to murder that man, as you now apply for attempted murder?

MR MOTHIBE: What I would say here is that the political objective was that during that time when we were members of the MK and members of the Youth League we needed firearms to defend ourselves and the person we disarmed is a police officer and then at that time any policeman was regarded as an enemy.

JUDGE MOTATA: Didn't you have some weaponry, or let me ask you this way; you said you did not want your co-applicant to know where you were hiding in Hillbrow because you kept some stuff there. What kind of things were you keeping at Hillbrow?

MR MOTHIBE: Firearms. I was not just responsible for those firearms or a particular unit, they belonged to the ANC.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Mothibe, I propose, or I put it to you that the shooting of that policeman, when you had already taken possession of the firearm was uncalled for, it was a malicious act. What do you say to that?

MR MOTHIBE: To hate the system and to hate a person were two different things. I hated apartheid and to hate a person who was a member of that government were two different things. I disarmed that person because he was working for the system, that is why I disarmed that person because we needed that firearm to safeguard the interests of the comrades.

MR MAPOMA: No, I don't have problem with taking a firearm, I understand that. What I'm saying, it was malicious of you now to shoot that person.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it was the applicant who shot him. When you say you, you mean the two of them?

MR MAPOMA: Them, all of them Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In plural?

MR MAPOMA: In plural.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Anyway let us leave it there. Would you please turn to page 22 of the paginated bundle of documents and your application form is there, it is the interpreted version of your application which is in Zulu starting at page, the original starts at page 11 up to 20. Now I'm referring to page 22, which interprets that original version. On paragraph 9(a)(iv) you say there

"I gave instructions for one murder and attempted murder that a member of the PAC should be killed."

Who is this member of the PAC you are talking about here?

MR MOTHIBE: It's Arnold Kotelo, because he was assisting PASO, we regarded him as a member of PAC. As I've stated earlier, you cannot sponsor an institution financially whereas you're not part of that institution. If you give them financial assistance, it means that you are part of that institution.

MR MAPOMA: I want to put it to you that Mrs Kotelo, if called to testify, will say that the deceased Mr Kotelo, was not a member of the PAC and in fact she will say that he was not politically active, but was on the contrary to what you are saying, a card carrying member of the ANC.

MR MOTHIBE: What I would say is that I know it is heartbreaking for Monica and then at times becomes difficult to accept what is the truth because if a thing has affected you, it becomes difficult. I know that anyone who is part of a particular family which has been affected, he will try to stand by him or her. I would not say Monica would not do that. I would not dispute what she is saying, but I know that it is heartbreaking from her side.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, just this little small point. I notice in the papers Kotelo is spelt K-O-T-E-L-A, but I notice from the Judgement it's K-G-O-T-H-E-L-O. What is the correct spelling of the name?

MR MAPOMA: It's K-O-T-E-L-O, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so it's spelt incorrectly in the Judgement.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why do you say it is hard for Mrs Kotelo to accept the truth? You were not sure of Mr Kotelo's PAC membership, were you?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I had that information that Kotelo was assisting members of PASO.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, let's not go back ...(indistinct). I say you personally in your testimony, you said other than what you heard, you were not sure of Mr Kotelo's PAC membership, but you believed what you were told by your comrades. Isn't it so?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: So how could you retort and say it is hard for Mrs Kotelo not to accept the truth, as if what you have said was the truth?

MR MOTHIBE: The contribution of Mr Kotelo at that time to PAC revealed the truth about his association.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma I see it's getting on. Are we adjourning or ...

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I won't be long, I'm just wrapping up.

CHAIRPERSON: Because some people have to travel far and there's Correctional Services.

MR MAPOMA: Oh yes. In fact Chairperson, that is all that I wanted to put to him. I'll leave it there. Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele, do you have any re-examination?

MS MAKHUBELE: Just quickly.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mothibe, it's clear that there are many contradictions in the bundle, your applications, your reply to further particulars, were you assisted by one person to fill these forms and to reply?

MR MOTHIBE: I was not helped by one person.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you helped by more than one person.

MR MOTHIBE: Two to three people. It depended on the particular occasion.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you know Mrs Kotelo before the incident where her husband was killed?

MR MOTHIBE: No Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: The woman who testified in Court, is it Maggie Dladla?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: In Court did she testify that she was with our unit or with ...(end of tape) So it's not correct that she was hijacked in the car with Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: That is not the truth, Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you know that she will be with your unit that evening?

MR MOTHIBE: I did not know.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MAKHUBELE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Motata, do you have any questions?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just about three, Chairperson, thank you. Why did it take you so long to report to Shell House about Mr Kotelo, that he has been killed?

MR MOTHIBE: The reason to report to Shell House late is because I did not find the person whom I was supposed to report to. That is why I did not report immediately after the incident.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you go to Shell House or did you know that that person is not at Shell House?

MR MOTHIBE: I went several times.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why couldn't you, because you had involved the present Commissioner of Police, Jackie Selebe and Peter Mokaba, why wouldn't you tell them because they knew of this problem he was causing, why didn't you tell them that you have now decided as a disciplined military soldier to take it in your own hands to make a decision one way or the other?

MR MOTHIBE: I thought I should report to the person who is directly involved and that is Zakes, that was the person whom I was supposed to report to in the first instance before this incident and after and that's the person I reported to after the incident and that's the person I was supposed to report to actually.

JUDGE MOTATA: But he didn't give you instructions, you never even spoke to him. He never gave you instructions, why should you report to him?

MR MOTHIBE: Because Zakes is a Commander, he was responsible for the whole of East Rand and he was involved in military issues and therefore he would understand if I explained to him about the incident and the situation and he would be the one who would carry forth the report to the ANC.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who was responsible for the establishment of Self Defence Units?

MR MOTHIBE: The establishment of the Self Defence Units was initiated by Chris Hani, that was his responsibility. After we had implemented the SDUs we had some commanding structures and control structures which were responsible in regard to reports.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. May I continue tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we'll continue tomorrow, although we haven't quite finished the evidence of Mr Mothibe. The interpreters have been working a long time and people have some distance to ride and it won't be much longer with the witness tomorrow morning. It will probably be more convenient to deal with it in the morning and not... Ms Makhubele, the cross-examination is completed, so you're free to speak with your client.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What would be a convenient time to start? Half-past nine, is that okay? Half past nine tomorrow?

MR MAPOMA: Half past nine will be okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that convenient?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele and Mr Makondo, I suggest you use the other road to get here. Go via the airport it will save yourselves two hours, if they're working on the other one, but we would like to start at half past nine because we've still got the evidence of Mr Ndlela the other applicant and we hear that there might even be further evidence from Mrs Kotelo and who knows who else and Friday they've got to break down these premises and people have got to fly out etc., so we'd want to start promptly please at half past nine tomorrow morning. Thank you. We'll then adjourn until half past nine tomorrow when we'll continue with the hearing here. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS