ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mbandazayo, do you want Mr Moti to be sworn in or is there something you want to put on record?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson. Chairperson, I would like to put on record that at page 17, what is termed Operation 2. Chairperson, in the affidavit that you were given of Vontjie I think it is separate, now I was looking, because it was extracted from another bundle because it was not there. It's page 2, Operation 2, Chairperson. The applicant is withdrawing his application in respect of this matter, the reason being that he was not involved in this operation but he was framed and as a result he was convicted of this operation but he was never there. He even confessed to it because he was tortured and he agreed that he participated in it but he was never involved in that. Stembele Kala was involved with the other unit, Vincent Mama and Peter Mokoena. So that's the reason the applicant is withdrawing his application, with respect, because he was never involved. So he was convicted of it.
Thank you, Chairperson, the other thing, page 2 at paragraph 6, he wanted to - where he was, early in '90 he was sent to Transkei for training under Thapelo Maseko, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I'll check with my notes, I think it was when I was taking it during the typing process, there many affidavits where it's said there some people are trained by Maseko so it was put there as Maseko. Then I checked in my notes when I was consulting. It was Tafara Rafara, the name which was supposed to be there.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?
MR MBANDAZAYO: T-A-F-A-R-A.
CHAIRPERSON: And his surname?
MR MBANDAZAYO: R-A-F-A-R-A.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, the others are just misprints Chairperson which we'll correct in the process, in the application.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is there anything else or do you want me to swear him in first?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Chairperson, he can be sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's do that first.
VONTJIE MZIMKHULU MOTI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Chairperson, it has been brought by my learned - by the Evidence Leader to my attention that the application which we have just finished, Mr Moti has not applied for it, the one which he was involved with Mr Maseko and Chairperson, I've brought it to her attention that according to my knowledge he applied for it and in the hand-written one it was Operation 22, in his hand-written application where there was an annexure, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR MBANDAZAYO: 22 Chairperson. It ends at 21 on the hand-written one so it was 22, Chairperson. So I don't what is the position because the reason why I made the affidavit, even with Maseko. I consulted him on this because it appeared then as one of the incidents. I don't know, now it does not appear and in the affidavit in which we are were to use E, we did not include it, we'd include with Maseko where he was going to do with Maseko as the affidavit and with Operation 9, it was Operation number 10 because we consolidated all because when he was sentenced they were separated because there were attempted murders and all but they flow from one incident so hence we shortened them to 9 or to 10 operations.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, you don't have possibly a copy of the hand-written annexure which ...(inaudible). It just accommodates Operation 21. I was just trying to see if we can't lay our hands on the rest of that of that annexure. 31? Yes. You wouldn't have that Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: No Chairperson, I do not have but I have requested the office that deals with the original applications to check if we have the 8th page of the annexure because I actually doubt if there is such a page because he seemed to me to have completed this application by saying that for further charges you can find them in the court documents. If you check at the bottom of page 10. But to guard ourselves against any mistake I've made a quick request that they check if there is such a page and then if there is it will be faxed to us as soon as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I would suggest for purposes of time, let's continue with the other ones which are ...(indistinct) and proceed with the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, in any case, I mean it seems that it's clear from the testimony of Mr Maseko as well that the present applicant was involved in that particular incident and at the foot of page 10 it does refer us to the official records which would contain that but I assume now that he has been charged with that incident?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, he was never charged with that incident, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh he wasn't charged with it?
MR MBANDAZAYO: No, he was not charged with that one.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well let's proceed with the others and see if we can get a feedback from the office in the meantime.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Moti, do you confirm that this affidavit was made by yourself and you abide by its contents?
MR MOTI: ...(inaudible)
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I'll proceed and read the affidavit for purposes of the record.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you must just get him to confirm paragraph 6 in the amendment that you wanted to have effected there?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Moti do you confirm the contents of paragraph 6, as amended, that you were not trained under Mr Maseko but you were trained by Tafara Rafara?
MR MOTI: Yes and the fact that I was trained 1990 to early 1991. Late 1990 to early 1991.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Which is December 1990 to early 1991?
MR MOTI: Yes to early 1991.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I proceed to read Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.
MR MBANDAZAYO
"I, the undersigned, Vontjie Mzimkhulu Moti do hereby make an oath and say that I'm the applicant in the undermentioned operations. The facts to which I depose herein are true and correct and within my personal knowledge unless the contents state otherwise.
I was born in Soweto, Gauteng, on the 19th November 1963 and have three children. I'm the third born at home out of six children. I left school at Standard 8 in 1983 due to financial reasons. In the same year I joined PAC through Azanyo and I was encroached to APLA the same year by my uncle, Adam Ati Lewate. During 1984 I was arrested ..."
...(intervention)
MR MOTI: Sorry, it was uncle's friend. Uncle's friend.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. Chairperson, correction
"I was encroached to APLA, same year, by my uncle's friend Adam Lewate."
MR MOTI: Sorry, you misunderstand. APLA ...(inaudible) that ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, you've read that. Don't you want to just revert back to the applicant to let him correct whatever he wants on record in respect of that particular paragraph number 4?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson.
MR MOTI: In the same year I joined ...(intervention)
MR MBANDAZAYO: 1983?
MR MOTI: Yes, the same year. Adam Lewate was my uncle's friend.
JUDGE MOTATA: Would it be Ata or Ati?
MR MOTI: Yes it's Adam Ati Lewate.
JUDGE MOTATA: Adam or what?
MR MOTI: Adam Ati Lewate.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only amendment you want to make to paragraph 4, Mr Moti?
MR MOTI: Yes, to paragraph 4.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you're happy with the rest of paragraph 4?
MR MOTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. You can then proceed, Mr Mbandazayo, and whenever there is something that your client wants to correct then perhaps you must just lead him on that and then correct it there and then.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay.
"During 1984 I was arrested and sentenced for repossessing a car. I was released on the 15th January 1986. On my release my uncle introduced me to APLA commander Diseko Peter Mogwate who died in 1992."
MR MOTI: Sorry. During 1994 I was arrested and sentenced for repossessing a car. I was released on the 15th January 1986. On my release - no, because I was not introduced by Diseko to ...(indistinct), maybe he made a mistake there. That's why ...(indistinct).
JUDGE MOTATA: Would you switch your mikes off because you're going to make a mess of our records.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you. Chairperson, for purposes I'll read the written one on his history with the PAC because it seems as if we - on this one.
CHAIRPERSON: Will it now be - if your client has a look at the rest of the affidavit to just make sure that you know that where it needs to be corrected? It ...(indistinct) time if we were to stand down for a very brief moment to just allow you to do that and then perhaps just deal with the affidavit in all one go or are you happy to ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: I'd appreciate that. I would appreciate an opportunity to browse through the affidavit, observing some mistakes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well. We'll stand down. Won't you just deal with that Mr Mbandazayo and let us reconvene as quickly as possible?
MR MBANDAZAYO: I'll do that Chairperson, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mbandazayo?
MR MBANDAZAYO: (continues) Yes Chairperson, thank you. In order to catch up with time, Chairperson, what I will do is that as I am reading I'll make corrections on those aspects.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I'll proceed and read paragraph 5. I was on paragraph 5
"During 1984 I was arrested and sentenced for repossessing a car. I was released on the 15th January 1986. On my release my uncle's friend introduced me to APLA commander, Diseko Peter Mogwate who died in September 1992. My uncles friend also died in April 1986. Peter also gave me basic military training after my release from prison. Our unit's primary task was to raise funds for the party who were to repossess from the privileged class, State or private financial institution to enhance the struggle. Late 1990 to early 1991 I was sent to Transkei for infantry training under Tafara Rafara. I was involved in about ten operations or more and I have applied for amnesty on all of them.
Operation 1:
I was part of the unit that repossessed Fidelity Guards in Lans, no longer ...(indistinct), in Lans. This operation happened on the 16th July 1988 at Lans Industria and it involved armed repossession of cash in transit of the Fidelity Guards security. This was an ambush type operation where a unit of four comprising of three groups. I was armed with .357 revolver and the rest of the other cadres were armed with pistols. We were divided into three groups, that is assault group - the assault group comprised of Peter, the commander, Tuzi who died on the 11th October 1990, killed by the police. Support group - comprised of Themba who is in prison. The third group, Cut Out Group, comprised of myself.
I was forming part of Cut Out Group and my task was to make sure that no one leaves or interferes with the operation. On our withdrawal there were no casualties or killings. As a driver of a car, a white BMW, I drove to our pre-agreed destination where we later dispersed after surrendering everything to the commander. The car that was used in the operation, I don't know where or how it was taken."
Operation 3, Chairperson:
This operation at Bruma Lake and it involved repossession of jewellery and valuables. We were a unit of four and we divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group was Peter, commander and Peter Nkosi who died in 1993. Support group was Themba and the Cut Out Group was myself. On this particular operation I came with information. I received it from my late friend Bheki Tshabalala. Bheki told me that there were some diamonds in that jewellery shop and he told me that he can buy them from anybody who can sell them to him at a reasonable price. I passed that information to my commander who later ordered me to do a reconnaissance on that shop. I did as ordered but at other times he, the commander, accompanied on this task. We did sufficient reconnaissance and then decided to launch our attack. We had both agreed on a Saturday because we reasoned that it was not busy. We then searched for a car to pull the operation. We stole the car to be used. It was a BMW and it was myself and Themba. We raided the target and the jewellery was repossessed. However, on our withdrawal we encountered an accident. The car that I was driving crashed into other cars but we managed to get a taxi very quickly. We went to our pre-agreed destination where, after surrendering everything to the commander, the commander ordered me to tell Bheki that he should contact him.
Operation 4:
This operation happened on the 7th December 1991 at Dube, Soweto. It involved armed repossession at First National Bank. We were a unit of four and we divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group was Peter and Brian. Support group was Themba and Cut Out Group was myself. We were acting on information whose source was known only by the commander. I only knew hours or so, soon before we were to carry out this operation. On this day I was ordered by the commander to come to his place. On my arrival I found him sitting with other comrades mentioned above. He then briefed us on the operation that was to be carried out. The car to be used was already parked in the yard. He then gave each of us an AK47 and also pistols. The operation depended on the signal from our commander's source. That means after arriving at the target place we were to wait until the commander got his signal. We waited and no signal came. After a long wait the bank also closed and the commander ordered that we should attack. We gained entry to a window at the back of the bank. As I was forming part of a Cut Out Group I waited outside. They came back. We withdrew to our pre-agreed destination. On arrival we surrendered everything to the commander. There were no casualties or killing.
Operation 5:
This operation happened on the 31st December 1991 at World Trade Centre. It involved armed repossession, cash in transit from Coin Securities. We were a unit of five and divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group was Peter, commander, Peter Nkosi and Oupa. Support group was Themba and Cut Out Group was myself. I did not know anything about this operation until I was informed by the commander on the day it took place. The commander briefed us on the operation and suggested that we should get a micro-bus. We managed to get a micro-bus from two white people and took it at gun point. We did not use it because we had a problem with it. We used another micro-bus which came out with Oupa. We left our cars in a certain basement and we all got into the micro-bus. We then proceeded to our main target operation. We were all carrying two firearms each. One AK rifle and a hand gun. We arrived before the security vehicle arrived. On their arrival we did not attack them until they came back carrying steel boxes of money. When they saw us a shoot-out ensued but we finally overcame them. We took the money boxes and withdrew and we did not notice whether somebody was injured or killed. On our withdrawal we did not notice somebody following us to the basement where we were supposed to change cars, that is leaving the micro-bus and taking our cars. As we were trying to change to other cars, we suddenly realised that the place was being surrounded by police. As we were trying to escape Oupa was shot dead. This operation failed because we lost everything, that is money and guns. We managed to escape as there were many cars in the basement and they did not know ours.
Operation 6:
This operation happened in 1992 at Queen's Supermarket in Johannesburg. It involved armed repossession of money. We were a unit of 5 and we divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group, Peter the commander, Peter Nkosi and Archie Khumalo. Support Group, Themba Radebe and Cut Out Group myself. The commander told us that there was a security van collecting money from many shops and its last pick up station was Queen's Supermarket. He also told us that he had even done a reconnaissance on several occasions and he saw the security van. We used a van for this operation. According to our commander this was supposed to be ambush operation on the fidelity vehicle which collected money from shops. The plan was that the assault group should be inside the shop so that when the security guards vehicle arrives, the Cut Out Group should give signal to the support group. The strategy was that the Fidelity Guards should find everybody lying down when they enter. As I was still looking at the direction they're supposed to come I noticed that they have already launched the attack without giving the signal. After a few minutes they came out telling me that we should withdraw and I did as ordered. As we were withdrawing, people came out and started shooting at the car we were in. Tyres and windows were shot at and Archie was also injured. We left the car and hired a taxi which took Archie to hospital where he later died as a result of a bullet wound. After dropping Archie at hospital we then proceeded to our pre-agreed destination where everything was surrendered to the commander before we dispersed.
Operation 7:
This operation happened on the 11th February 1992 at Dube, Soweto and it involved armed repossession of cash in transit from the Fidelity Guards. We were a unit of four and divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group, Peter and Peter Nkosi, support group Themba, Cut Out Group myself. The commander told us that he had received information that the Fidelity Guards would be collecting money from the Standard Bank. He did the reconnaissance. We used a micro-bus for the operation. When the guards were from the Standard Bank to collect money, we confronted them. They tried to resist and as a result a shoot-out ensued but we overcame them. The commander and Peter Nkosi were injured in the process but not seriously. We were carrying two firearms each, One rifle and one handgun. The commander was also carrying a Chinese stick grenade. We withdrew and went to our pre-agreed destination where we surrendered everything to the commander before dispersing. I later learnt in court that securities were also injured on that day.
Operation 8:
This operation on the 10th June 1992 at Elsberg, south of Johannesburg and it involved armed repossession from the Fidelity Guards. We were a unit of four and we divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group Peter and Peter Nkosi, support group, myself and Cut Out Group, Themba. We were acting on information by the commander. For this operation we used a white panel van. The target was confronted in front of the bank, Trust Bank. As they were trying to leave after collecting the money from the bank we withdrew with one of the security guards. Nothing happened to him and we dropped in at some distance and gave him money to board a taxi. We had two firearms each, a rifle and a hand gun. We went straight to our pre-agreed destination where we surrendered everything to our commander before dispersing to our respective places.
Operation 9:
This operation happened at East Avenue Bottle Store at Rhoda Park and it involved armed repossession from Fidelity Guards. We were a unit of five and we divided ourselves into three groups. Assault group Peter and Peter Nkosi and Brian Dongo. Support group, Nadi, Cut Out Group, myself. On this particular morning I was called by the commander and when I arrived the other comrades were already there and a blue and a white Ford bakkie were parked in the yard. He then briefed me about the operation and gave me an AK47. All the others had already had their AK47. We left the target area and we arrived before the Fidelity Guards arrived. I did not confront them on their arrival, we confronted them when they came back with the money. They were three. As the guard carrying money came out, the assault group confronted him and he attempted to resist by reaching for his gun. A shoot-out ensued and the guard who was protecting the one carrying money died and the other two surrendered. We took their firearms, money boxes from the van and we drove to our pre-arranged agreed destination where on our arrival we surrendered everything to the commander before dispersing.
I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act and that I have made full and proper disclosure of my involvement on the abovementioned operations."
Chairperson, I would just also to - raise some few points with the applicant.
Mr Moti, is it correct that you were also sentenced to three years suspended for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: And you were also sentenced for - jailed for car theft?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct you were also sentenced for possessing an unlawful unlicensed firearm and ammunition?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: And you paid a fine?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct that in 1988, on the 18th August, you were sentenced for four years which you appealed against both conviction and sentence?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: And you were granted bail pending the outcome?
MR MOTI: Yes, that is correct.
MR MBANDAZAYO: And also you never heard anything until 1998 when you were informed by the prison authorities that your appeal was turned down?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: What was this appeal for? What did you do in this instance?
MR MOTI: For attempting to steal a car.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, that's the evidence of the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, is there any further clarity on this other incident that was in question or are you proceeding just on the ones that you have placed before us now?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, in view the Leader of Evidence told me that I can't get anything so we're deciding that we should proceed on the ones which are before the Committee, yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Mooij, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOOIJ: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Moti, the affidavit that was read into the record now, is that the total of your - that's your application in its totality?
MR MOTI: As you've just heard now, they say other application is not here which means they're not all.
MR MOOIJ: So your answer is yes?
MR MOTI: Yes Sir, not all.
MR MOOIJ: Now I'll ask the question again. Your application, as it is now presented to this Committee, is as is contained in your affidavit which was just read out by your legal representative. There's nothing else?
MR MOTI: It's difficult to answer that question because he says Operation 22 is not here so we can't proceed with that one so if you say they are all here, what about number 22? Or excluding it.
MR MOOIJ: No, I'm asking you if this is your application in total that you're presenting to the Committee?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now my difficulty was to reconcile this to the hand-written application which you originally submitted. Now I take it that based on what you've just said, insofar as what's written in the hand-written application, is not contained in the affidavit, that should be disregarded, is that correct?
MR MOTI: No, I don't mean that. I don't mean to say that. I fully agreed with what is written here but it's not all. Operation 22 is not here so ...(intervention)
MR MOOIJ: My question to you, Mr Moti, is this written application, as is set out from page 4 up until page 10.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, if the Chairperson will have a look at some of these incidents, the reason is that now in the affidavit, the typed one, there are few it's because in the hand-written one he enumerated the incident which are charges which were proffered against him including assault which all flow from one incident so were consolidated as one incident that thereof some people were assaulted in the process. So when he was charged, all of them were just separated, attempted murders into various things. You will find that the dates are the same and they flow from one incident.
CHAIRPERSON: So the details that are contained in the annexure relates to the offences that flow from the particular incident?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And what is presented to us is the incident and the application is for amnesty in respect of whatever the delicts or offences might be that flow from the particular incident?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Chairperson, I suppose so.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, I follow, yes. Yes Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: So I'll ask you the question again, Mr Moti. Insofar as what is written in the hand-written part, from page 4 until page 10. If that is not contained in your affidavit, then it should be disregarded. Is that correct?
MR MOTI: You are saying if what is contained in the affidavit is not here, you must disregard this one or the affidavit?
MR MOOIJ: That is correct, I'm asking whether if what appears in the affidavit, or what appears in this hand-written statement. If that doesn't appear in the affidavit then this hand-written part should be disregarded?
MR MOTI: It's hard to answer that question because what happened when I was about to apply for amnesty, I went to the authorities in prison, I asked for all the cases that I was sentenced. So they gave me a printout and some other printout contained charges, like for instance there's somewhere where we robbed, we repossessed from the Fidelity Guards and there was a shoot-out, so they say robbery and attempted murder. So I applied for both of them. In other cases they talk about the car. They say the car, so I have to reconcile, or this car was to be used for repossession. So your question is too tricky for me to can say disregard anything. Wait till we talk, maybe along the way you'll understand that this flows from this one. These flow from this one because I was not in the position to separate by then.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, you had legal representation, you've got legal representation now, the onus is on you to present your case to the Committee?
MR MOTI: But when I applied, there was no legal representatives. We did not have someone legally representing us when we filled the form. So we filled a form based on the printout that I got from the authorities.
MR MOOIJ: But since that time, Mr Moti, you've had the opportunity to consult with your legal representative?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: And you've no doubt been advised as to what to do and based on that advice you've now prepared this affidavit and this is now your final application to this Committee, not so?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: So therefore, insofar as what you did earlier, we should ignore?
MR MOTI: No, don't ignore it.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I don't know because the hand-written part forms part of his application which is the basis of this hearing. The affidavit facilitates the hearing, it's not an application itself but if facilitates for the purposes of the hearing but his application is the one which is written on the form and attached with annexures.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is the position. The application form and whatever came into the Amnesty Committee as part of that would obviously be his application so you must start from that perspective, Mr Mooij.
MR MOOIJ: Certainly, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And the affidavit is simply something that we have imposed upon applicants to make it easier for us when we get to a hearing not to sit and write down every word that they say or we have something to go on.
MR MOOIJ: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Moti, Mr Maseko gave evidence that on his return to South Africa at the end of 1989, thereafter he established the Repossession Unit. Now if that evidence were to be regarded as being correct then surely your operation 1, as is set out on page 5 of your application and which you also set out on the operation 1, that you describe on page 17 of the supplementary bundle, then that must clearly fall outside of any activity of the Repossession Unit?
MR MOTI: According to you or what Thapelo said?
MR MOOIJ: According to what Mr Maseko testified.
MR MOTI: Let's again take into consideration what later General said. Let's not focus only on what Thapelo said. What was the follow up thereafter, didn't the General say Peter came into the country '87?
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, at that stage, on the 16th of the 7th 1988, there was no Repossession Unit in existence in South Africa.
MR MOTI: No, that's not according to my understanding.
MR MOOIJ: Well Mr Moti, that was the evidence of Mr Maseko and certainly also the evidence of the General insofar as that Mr Maseko was in charge of those units or the departments or whoever fell under the Repossession Unit reported to Mr Maseko and also the evidence of the General was that Mr Diseko was another - he had fell into another department altogether?
MR MOTI: I think that is beyond my - I cannot fully answer that question. Why? Because I knew nothing about Peter Mokoena. All I knew was that what we were doing we were doing for the part. The unit was primarily tasked to raise operational funds, to advance our political aims and objectives.
MR MOOIJ: The evidence of both the General and Mr Maseko, the evidence was that it was only the Repossession Unit that had that function?
MR MOTI: Yes, I heard that.
MR MOOIJ: The evidence was further that you were not a member of that unit?
MR MOTI: Who said that, Thapelo or the General?
MR MOOIJ: The evidence of Mr Maseko was that you were not a member of the ...(inaudible)
MR MOTI: Okay, I heard him saying so and I heard him contradicting himself along the line, so I don't know which one you are going to take because at one time he said Peter was not a member. Further along the line he said no, Peter was a commander of APLA and the General came here and told you and told the Committee that Peter was a member of APLA and a commander of a unit, so it depends on which side you come from and which side are you prepared to take.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, I put it to you that it was never - it's not a case of who said you take. Your so-called commander had totally a different instruction. He was involved, he was an operative in - he was involved in operations, he had nothing to do with the Repossession Unit, he was entirely a different section of APLA?
MR MOTI: Let me tell you what Peter told me when he came here. It was 1988, I think, yes. He said he was given instruction in Zimbabwe to come and establish a unit whose primary task was to raise funds, operational funds, to advance our political aims and objectives. So what you are saying now, I don't know. It's a Peter that Peter is not alive to answer for himself but General, he further mentioned that people were performing duties that were beyond their scope so how do you take that?
MR MOOIJ: The fact that that was happening, no reference was made to you, Mr Moti.
MR MOTI: Okay.
MR MOOIJ: Now at the jewellery operation which happened in 1991 at Bruma, it appears that the total value of the items and the money stolen amounted to R500 000. What happened to that money?
MR MOTI: I never saw the money, I saw the jewellery and the jewellery was surrendered to the commander as it was. As to how much the jewellery was worth I cannot answer that because I didn't even see the money.
MR MOOIJ: Let's go back to operation 1, 16 July 1988, the amount there was R157 217.20. What happened to that money?
MR MOTI: It was surrendered to the commander as it was.
MR MOOIJ: And how much of that money did you get?
MR MOTI: Nothing.
MR MOOIJ: Now why do you think Mr Maseko would come and say that none of that money, that one or the other one, the jewellery one, none of that, the proceeds of those robberies or those operations came to APLA?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I don't think it would be a fair question to the applicant, Chairperson, because he told that he only surrendered to the commander, the commander would be in a position to answer what happened with the money. He was just part of the unit, he does not know where the money is, they just surrendered to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that seems to be the situation, Mr Mooij. I don't know how - I suppose you can try to have it clarified but I don't know if it's going to get you much further than that point.
MR MOOIJ: Certainly, Chairperson.
Now Mr Moti, Mr Maseko also gave evidence that at the time when he met you, shortly before the Fidelity Guards incident which he applied for amnesty for, he said that the reason why he had approached your group or the organisation of which you formed a part, was because you people, the people in your group were making a lot of money. You were very successful at what you were doing and you were referred to as - you were involved in criminal activities. You were accomplished and seasoned robbers, so to speak and that is why he approached you because of your skills and you were making more money than what APLA was making and that is why you were approached?
MR MOTI: Let me answer on behalf of myself because I cannot answer on behalf of the people who are not here. What happened, yes there was a time when I was a criminal. Maybe people were looking from a distance, thought that no, I was making a lot of money, but I then, I was just stealing cars. So maybe they saw a nice car what I'd stole, they thought I was making a lot of money. Be that as it may, I happened to know other cadres who were former ...(indistinct) who later became cadres and what what. Okay, yes you can say they were living okay.
MR MOOIJ: And you were also living okay?
MR MOTI: You can't say I was living okay by seeing the car, the stolen car passing away, riding here, maybe I'm driving a flashy car and it's a stolen car. You don't know, you would think no, Vontjie is living okay.
MR MOOIJ: Well, the evidence of Mr Maseko was that his reason why the Repossession Unit approached your organisation of which you and your commander and other people there were involved in, the reason why he approached you was because you were making more money than what they were making. You were making a lot of money, that is why he was interested in getting you to assist him with his operations?
MR MOTI: When I first met comrade Thapelo, okay I didn't know his real name, it was 1991 and I was from a training, I was from Transkei and he said to the Committee here by then I was not a APLA cadre and I was long an APLA cadre by then. I became an APLA cadre in 1983. So there are a lot of contradictions in what Mr Maseko said and you cannot put that on me.
MR MOOIJ: Well Mr Maseko also testified that when he met you in 1991 you were a neither an APLA member nor a PAC member?
MR MOTI: But you didn't ask him whether he asked me or what because as an APLA cadre I am guided by 15 points of attention. As an APLA cadre, I am guided by the 15 points of attention which says I must observe to the strictest rules of secrecy. So I won't go around and tell people, no I'm a trained APLA cadre and what what and our commander usually insisted that we don't talk to people even if it's borrowed names. He came to our unit. He called it compartmentalisation of information. So maybe he didn't even know that my name was Vontjie but I know now that he knew I was Vontjie. Many people didn't use that name and the one Mzimkhulu, it's very rare that people use those names.
MR MOOIJ: Well Moti, Mr Maseko was very adamant that you were neither a PAC member nor an APLA member and the General who gave evidence also said that he'd never seen or heard or had no knowledge of you prior to today.
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now would you say that Mr Maseko then, his evidence on that regard, that you were neither a member of the PAC nor APLA, that that evidence should be rejected?
MR MOTI: Exactly.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I just come in to ask something here?
Are you saying when you met Mr Maseko in 1991 he knew you as Vontjie?
MR MOTI: No, I'm not saying he knew me as Vontjie but my codename was Tami so possibly he knew me - I introduced myself as Tami but Thapelo used to stay the following street so even if I say I'm Tami, at the end of the day to him I am Vontjie.
ADV SANDI: Yes but also - I'm sorry Mr Mooij.
You say when you met him in 1991 you were already a member of APLA which you had joined in 1983?
MR MOTI: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but I have a problem trying to understand that in the light of paragraph 5 of your affidavit where it reads as follows
"During 1984 I was arrested and sentenced for repossessing a car. I was released on the 15th January 1986. On my release my uncle's friend introduced me to APLA."
MR MOTI: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Then you go on
"To APLA commander."
MR MOTI: Yes.
ADV SANDI: So you're going to give that person's name?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, through you, Chairperson, if you read the paragraph 4 of the affidavit, above. He said that the same year which is 1993 which he dropped from school
"I joined PAC through Azanyo and I was encroached to APLA by the same year by my uncle's friend Adam Ati Lewate."
ADV SANDI: So which is which, is it 1986 or 1983? It can't be both?
MR MOTI: No, it's 1983.
ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.
MR MOTI: Sorry, paragraph 5 says
"During 1984 I was arrested for repossessing a car. I was released on 15 January 1986. On my release my uncle's friend introduced me to commander Peter Diseko Mogwate who died in 1992. My uncle's friend also died in 1986."
So maybe my understanding of English is not well but I don't see where it says ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: So maybe you can deal with it along the way.
JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, but we should clarify this because if you read further
"Peter also gave me basic training after my release from prison"
MR MOTI: Yes.
JUDGE MOTATA: So how could you become - are you saying you became a member of the PAC and you encroached on APLA without training, that is in 1983?
MR MOTI: No, I trained in 1983. Can you read my application somewhere?
JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, I just want you to clarify this because we are trying to get this in order, that's what's my interest in the clarification. When you say, listen
"Peter also gave me basic military training after my release from prison."
MR MOTI: Yes, annexure 1. At page 4. Paragraph 2 I think
"At the beginning of 1983."
Can I read it?
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes please.
MR MOTI
"At the beginning of 1983 I dropped out of school due to financial reasons. It is that year that my political awareness sprang up from the influence of a man of great inspiration. That man was a friend of my uncle and this man's name is Adam Ati Lewate. He instilled ideas of social upliftment and black empowerment and ideology he practically engaged him at the time."
"However, this man ..."
in paragraph 6 ...(intervention)
JUDGE MOTATA: 3.
MR MOTI: The next paragraph, yes.
"However, this man and five other were accused on April 1986 in an attempted robbery but before being killed, Ati trained me in the back yard how to use firearms."
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, you may proceed. Sorry about that Mr Mooij, you may proceed.
MR MOOIJ: Thank you.
Now, it's not the end of the difficulties, Mr Moti, because according to the affidavit that you read first, it was in 1983 that you were introduced to APLA?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: And according to the annexure that you have just referred to now it was 1986 and in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, you also say that you were introduced to the APLA commander in 1986? And then to go back to another affidavit you were trained in 1986?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I don't know whether we are running in circles because I think in the affidavit in paragraph 5 it's clear that it was the year in which he was introduced to Diseko not to APLA.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is clear.
MR MBANDAZAYO: APLA he was introduced in 1983 and also here he said before he died in April 1986 but it does not say he was trained in 1986.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that seems to be clear that the affidavit seems to link the applicant's political activities to the year 1983 and then some things happened after that. Yes Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, then your evidence just now was when you were asked, you said that you received training in 1983?
MR MOTI: The first training was in 1983, yes.
MR MOOIJ: If you received training in 1983 why was it then necessary after your release from prison that you should be trained to use a firearm in the back yard?
MR MOTI: When was I trained how to use a firearm in the back yard because it seems you are saying in 1986?
MR MOOIJ: Well, in the hand-written affidavit you said that he was killed in April 1986?
MR MOTI: Ati? Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Yes, but before being killed, "Ati trained me in the back yard how to use a firearm."?
MR MOTI: Yes, not in 1986. Not in 1986. There's nowhere where I say before he died he trained me in 1986 how to use a firearm.
MR MOOIJ: That is so but can you then tell us when was this training?
MR MOTI: In 1983.
MR MOOIJ: So therefore in 1984 - well let me ask you this, this incident of the car theft in 1984, that had nothing to do with APLA's operations?
MR MOTI: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, did you say yes to the question as to whether the 1984 incident had nothing to do with your APLA activities, you said yes?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now according to the SAP-69, which is page 35 of the application, you were convicted in 1984 of assault?
MR MOTI: Yes, I did mention that.
MR MOOIJ: Also nothing to do with APLA?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Then in 1984, that's the one we've just spoke about, the motor vehicle theft also had nothing to do with APLA and then the 1988 one, where the attempted theft of a motor vehicle also had nothing to do with APLA?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: And in 1988 the possession of firearms, also nothing to do with APLA?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now this, the '88 one, where there was attempted theft of a motor vehicle for which you were sentenced for four years and you said that the appeal was turned down. How long did you serve for that conviction?
MR MOTI: How long did I?
MR MOOIJ: How long did you spend in prison for that conviction?
MR MOTI: Not more than 7 days I think because I made an appeal and I bailed out.
MR MOOIJ: Yes but the appeal was dismissed?
MR MOTI: They told me in 1998 and I was in prison from 1993 so maybe the sentence that I'm serving is part of these fours or the four years started when they told me. I don't know.
MR MOOIJ: Now if we, the operation in Dube, Soweto, operation 4 on page 19 of the supplementary bundle, is that the same one as appears on page 6 of the bundle?
MR MOTI: Operation?
MR MOOIJ: Operation 4 on page 19 of the supplementary bundle.
MR MOTI: Is this the one?
MR MOOIJ: This is the one at Dube, Soweto, 7/12/1991.
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now there an amount of R455 195 was stolen. What happened to that money?
MR MOTI: It was surrendered to the commander as it was. We never counted the money.
MR MOOIJ: How much of that money did you get?
MR MOTI: I don't know, as I said we surrendered it without counting, so ...(intervention)
MR MOOIJ: Did you get nothing of this money?
MR MOTI: Nothing.
MR MOOIJ: Now if you didn't get any of this money, how did you survive, what did you live on?
MR MOTI: From when till when?
MR MOOIJ: Well, we're now at, according to this, it was the 7th December 1991, the first incident that you referred to was the 16th July 1998, it's a period of three and a half years.
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now if you didn't get any of the money, what did you live on? You weren't employed?
MR MOTI: When maybe we had like for instance I used to hire a room, lodge, I don't know how to put it, I told Peter and when I had no money maybe to pay there or money to buy food and what what, I reported to Peter. So everything was taken care of by him.
MR MOOIJ: Please explain that?
MR MOTI: No, it's self-explanatory.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: You said how did I live. I said to you when I had nothing I reported to Peter that now I want to buy groceries or something, something, then he would give me the money. R100, R200 or what what.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, you're married, you've got children, now if you didn't keep any of the money, could you live on R100 or R200 which Peter would give you occasionally? Please explain that?
MR MOTI: Funny enough, that's what happened, so if you ask me to explain what happened, it's as you put it.
MR MOOIJ: Now the money that he ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: But I'm not married. Alright, I had children. My family provides for them when it is necessary but they live with their mothers who are married.
ADV SANDI: Whilst you are trying to decide what question to ask, can I just come in here Mr Mooij?
Can I ask you to explain something here? You say there was a time, I hope my note is correct here:
"There was a time when I was a criminal and I was just stealing cars"
Did you say that?
MR MOTI: Yes, I did say that.
ADV SANDI: Which period is this?
MR MOTI: I stole cars after the death of Ati. What happened, after ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Just say to me from year so and so to year so and so I was a criminal and stealing cars.
MR MOTI: Yes, from 1986 to 1988.
ADV SANDI: That is the period you're talking about, okay.
MR MOTI: Can I explain something here? When I left school due to financial reasons, I used to sell apples or peanuts on the train or maybe at stadiums when there are matches and all that or anything that could be cool drinks or whatever. So one time it was in Rand Stadium and there was a match in the evening. So I went there, I sold apples and peanuts. When I came back there was no transport, in fact from Rand Stadium to Booysen Station, it's a long distance. Usually we hike to get to the station. So I was given a lift by people I know who live in my neighbourhood. When they gave me a lift they didn't give me a lift to Booysen Station, they gave me a lift to Soweto. On our way to Soweto we met a roadblock. There were three of them, I was the fourth one and I had some stock left here. When we approached the roadblock, they just jumped out because they knew the car was stolen. I was left there. Fortunately they were caught by the police, the other one was shot. They came back. When they came back they insisted that I tell the police that we ask a lift with them meaning that the fourth - we were five, the fourth one ran away. I made that blunder, I ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: I don't want to interrupt you. I think he has answered my question here. That incident was before 1986?
MR MOTI: Yes, it's just after I dropped out of school so there were contradictions along the way as we are talking here because I was a criminal in 1986 but I went to prison in 1983. Somebody asked so what about the car theft case, so I'm trying to answer that. I went to prison, I became a criminal after from prison. I went to prison innocent and I became a criminal after.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright don't, Mr Moti, there are a lot of other things that needs to be attended to. Don't be concerned about anything that's got nothing to do with politics and you know, what we have to decide upon is these things that took place before us where there is the application for amnesty for. That's really all that concerns us, so whatever else you did that is not before us, we are not sitting here to judge you on that or to make a finding on that and if anybody asks you questions that's got nothing to do with the political matters that are before us, then I'll stop them. So don't be concerned about what happened over and above these things. We are just sitting here, we really just want to hear about those cases where you say you were acting with a political motive. Just tell us about that, I'll stop everybody else who tries to talk about anything else because we don't have the time for that. Alright, do you understand?
MR MOTI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Thank you Chairperson.
So you say that you made a living purely from R100 and R200 that were given to you by your commander, Peter?
MR MOTI: Yes, from '88 until my arrest.
MR MOOIJ: Now after you were convicted in the high court for these - for all these charges, you served your sentence at Diepkloof, not so?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: And at present you're at C-Max in Pretoria?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Is that not because you escaped from Diepkloof?
MR MOTI: Can I answer that Mr Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: What's that, your - the allegation that you escaped from prison? No, no, don't answer that please.
No, Mr Mooij, let's carry on with the merits of this case.
MR MOTI: Okay.
MR MOOIJ: Well it has to do with the merits of the application, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then you must make it clear to me. I don't see that.
MR MOOIJ: If there was merit in your application, if you were really a political cadre as you say that you were and you believed that there were merits, there were prospects of success for this application, why was it necessary for you to escape from prison?
MR MOTI: In the first place I never planned to escape. I was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Moti, let's just save some time. As I've said I don't want to hear unnecessary debates here. The suggestion of the advocate there is that you escaped from the prison because you knew that there was no chance that your amnesty application would be successful, do you agree or do you disagree?
MR MOTI: Disagree.
CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: In the affidavit that you placed before the Court, which is supposed to summarise the facts, you say nothing about the charges of attempted murder?
MR MOTI: In the affidavit?
MR MOOIJ: Yes.
MR MOTI: This one?
MR MOOIJ: Yes, this affidavit. Nothing is mentioned of the charges of attempted murder?
MR MOTI: Whose attempted murder?
MR MOOIJ: You were convicted on charges of attempted murder?
MR MOTI: Yes but as I said, other such charges flowing from the main operation. I made an example where a Fidelity Guard employee was killed. There were three, two of them were not killed but I was charged with attempted murder of those cases and I was sentenced for those attempted murders.
MR MOOIJ: Yes.
MR MOTI: So if I apply for operation 1 and operation 1 has five charges, it goes without saying that all those charges must follow.
MR MOOIJ: But it doesn't say so in the affidavit, Mr Moti.
MR MOTI: What were we supposed to say, all the things must follow?
MR MOOIJ: No, you were asked to set out ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: The essence of appearing before the Committee is to elaborate where I couldn't on writing, I think. So I'm here to elaborate on what is not written here. But I wonder how do you reconcile the fact that in my annexure I applied for them?
MR MOOIJ: Yes but in respect of, say for instance now in respect of operation 1, in July 1988, it's not clear there from the written one and also from the affidavit as to what happened at that incident. You have to go through the whole application. So I'm asking you why is nothing mentioned of those charges?
MR MOTI: But I'm here to mention those charges. Ask me about what happened, I will tell you. I am here. Ask me what happened in operation 1, what happened in operation 2, then I will tell you operation ...(intervention)
MR MOOIJ: Well then could you just start off with operation 1, tell us what happened there?
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: In respect of what, in respect of people that were injured or what?
MR MOOIJ: If there were people injured or people killed.
MR MOTI: No, no one was killed and I was forming part of a Cut Out Group. We were a unit of 4.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay stop there Mr Moti. The question was just whether somebody was killed or injured and you say nobody was?
MR MOTI: Operation 1?
CHAIRPERSON: Operation 1.
MR MOTI: Nobody was.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Thank you Chairperson.
Operation 3, was anybody killed there?
MR MOTI: Not according to my knowledge, but I wouldn't say nobody was killed because we encountered an accident along the way. So maybe the people we crashed with died but ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no that's good enough. You don't need to speculate. You said so far as you know nobody was killed or injured? That's good enough. Just tell us the facts, leave the rest out, right?
MR MOTI: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Operation 4, the amount of R455 195, what happened to that money?
MR MOTI: It was surrendered.
MR MOOIJ: To?
MR MOTI: To the commander of the unit.
MR MOOIJ: And you never got any?
MR MOTI: Whose name is Peter, whose code name is Peter Mokoena, whose real names are Diseko Mogwate.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, did you get any money?
MR MOTI: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON: Yourself?
MR MOTI: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: In operation 5, the one at Trade Centre, were any of the people other than Oupa killed or injured?
MR MOTI: Maybe the security because there was a shoot-out, so I don't know, maybe the security were injured during the shoot-out but on our side only Oupa, but he was also not killed in the operation but at the basement where we were to change cars.
MR MOOIJ: And you don't know about the other people, do you, the security officers?
MR MOTI: No, I don't know, I don't know whether they were killed or not. But in my annexure, when I ask there - sorry, when I ask to fill the form there at Diepkloof Prison, they gave me the printout from the computer and the computer said there were two attempted murders of security guards, the one that we ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you don't know whether they were injured or not? That's good enough, that's just attempted murder again, you can fire, you can fire a shot somewhere in this in attempted murder, so just talk about the injuries. That's what the advocate is asking. Right, Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Yes Chairperson.
Of how many counts of attempted murder were you convicted, Mr Moti?
MR MOTI: Seven ......(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moti, where did you count that seven from? What is that document?
MR MOTI: Annexure, from the annexure.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is it something that you prepared?
MR MBANDAZAYO: Hand-written annexure, Chairperson.
MR MOTI: Hand-written.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR MOTI: Yes. It's from annexure number 4 - from annexure number 5, at page 8. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. But as I've withdrawn my application on operation number 2 and most of the attempted murder relate to operation number 2. Attempted murder of police. It's 28 March 1990. It's operation 11, operation 12 and operation 13. Annexure number 5, page 8.
MR MOOIJ: So how many were there in total, attempted murders?
MR MOTI: Including this?
MR MOOIJ: Without the application that you've withdrawn.
MR MOTI: Okay, obviously if I take 3 from 7 it's four. Let me make sure.
I'm sorry, if I exclude the three that flow from operation 2, there can be six because from operation 18 on the annexure 7, page 10, at Eldorado Park in East Avenue Bottle Store where a security guard was killed, there are two attempted murders, will relate to that case. The ones that were not killed. So I would say six.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, these motor vehicles, according to your notes here that you made, running from page 7, there's one mentioned there at the bottom, a vehicle and the one at 9 and 10 ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: Sorry, page 7?
MR MOOIJ: Page 7 of your application. Operation 9 was the car robbery, operation 10 was a car robbery and there was one other, I think, 14. Those three.
MR MOTI: Was there 14?
MR MOOIJ: Yes. Yes, 9, 10 and 14. You refer to cars that were robbed.
MR MOTI: What happened during or before we were to execute this operation, I was ordered by the commander to come to his place. In fact he ordered me the previous night, that I should be at his place in the early hours of the morning. So I went there. On my arrival there were other cadres. Themba was there and Peter Nkosi was there. He briefed us about the operation that was to be executed later that morning and he said to us we must embark upon a search for a vehicle that was to be used to execute that operation because someone, another cadre, he didn't mention his name, promised him that he will come with a car, but seeing from the time the cadre is not coming, so we went to Johannesburg, Northern suburbs of Johannesburg.
We repossessed a microbus there from two white men and as I was driving, the microbus started - the hazards went off and the hooters went off, so I searched for a secluded area where I could disconnect the fuse. When I got there I disconnected the fuse. After I disconnected the fuse, when I tried to move the car, all the wheels jammed. So we dumped that car there.
So when I asked for the printout in prison, I made a mistake because I was not aware that I was not sentenced for that car. So I applied for that car which was never used.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's fine, that was an offence. So what is the position, is the position that all these three incidents which concern vehicles, were they repossessed for the purposes of your operation on the instructions of Peter?
MR MOTI: Sorry, I'm trying to clarify that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, no. No, no, just listen to me first.
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Because you might be clarifying something that's not relevant for our purposes and that's why I'm trying to ask you. The three incidents that you refer to now, where there are vehicles involved, that were repossessed, were those vehicles taken on the instructions of your commander, Peter, for the purposes of executing your operations? All three of them, 9, 10, 14?
MR MOTI: I'm reluctant to say yes because the car that was used in the operation specifically on the 31st December 1991, came with Oupa so I don't know when was it repossessed and by whom. Maybe Oupa had other people. So here it was as if I was involved. So I made a mistake maybe when I applied for - when I filled this.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but were you driving in those cars with them?
MR MOTI: Yes when Oupa came with the microbus I drove it.
CHAIRPERSON: You drove. Yes?
MR MOTI: To the scene of the operation and after the scene of the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: And were you inside these other cars too?
MR MOTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Thank you Chairperson.
Now I don't understand your evidence, Mr Moti, you said that - now you've just told the Chairperson that you were driving this kombi to the operation and thereafter and just now you said that after the vehicle was stolen, it's hazard lights came on and it had to be dumped.
MR MOTI: That was dumped. The one that was used to execute this operation came with Oupa. The one that we took from two white men gave us problems and we dumped it there. So when I applied I thought of that one because I was involved when that one was repossessed.
MR MOOIJ: But you specifically referred to the one that was used in the robbery of the 31st December.
MR MOTI: Okay, yes. Then I was - I drove that car.
MR MOOIJ: But that's the one where you said it was taken from the white man. Look at your notes.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I think it was corrected as one of the incidents I corrected when we were reading the affidavit, that this gave him problems and then we used the one which came with Oupa. When I was reading the affidavit I corrected that one.
CHAIRPERSON: Operation 5? Yes, well that was corrected, yes. It said that you did not use the vehicle that, this microbus that was repossessed from the two white people but you used another vehicle for the operation.
MR MOOIJ: Mr Chairperson, the annexure which I've just referred to was an annexure to an affidavit. The application, the form that was completed was under oath. It now appears that with the second affidavit there's a change in evidence and that is why I'm asking these questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact ...
MR MOOIJ: And it appears as if the evidence is being made as the application proceeds.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to put that to him? That might be an argument eventually as well. Perhaps you want to put it to him to respond.
MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I want to correct this because it's clear. The applicant explains why he thought that the kombi which gave them problem is the one which he was convicted for yet he was convicted for the one Oupa came with. So, but both of them were microbuses so he thought that he was convicted for the one they robbed from the white man.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that seems to be his explanation but I think Mr Mooij wants to argue to the contrary and I said if he so minded he might put it to your client and take his response. Perhaps we can then move from this matter which is really then just a question of argument.
MR MOOIJ: Now Mr Moti so far you've told us about the one incident relating to the kombi which was the 31/12/1991. Now you said that the one that was robbed from these two chaps, that one was dumped and that you used the other one that came with Oupa. Correct?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now was that also a stolen vehicle?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Now what did your members do with that vehicle after the robbery? Did you sell it? What did you do?
MR MOTI: According to my knowledge it was left where Oupa died and the police took it.
MR MOOIJ: Were you there when he died?
MR MOTI: I was there when he was shot.
MR MOOIJ: But you don't know for sure what happened to the kombi?
MR MOTI: During the trial there were photos of that kombi and the registration and what else, so the police will not leave a stolen car on the scene. It goes without saying that they took the car.
MR MOOIJ: Well, it's a matter of evidence. Now what happened to the other two incidents, involving the cars. Number 9 and number 10? You haven't told the Commission about that.
MR MOTI: I think number 9 is the white BMW that we used when we were executing operation number 3 if I'm not mistaken.
CHAIRPERSON: And number 10? What vehicle is that? Just give an explanation.
MR MOTI: I can't remember but maybe it's one of the cars that we used to repossess. I cannot specifically -why I remember this is because of the date.
CHAIRPERSON: You can't remember the full details of this vehicle in operation 10?
MR MOTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: You said in respect of operation 9 you said you remembered because of the date?
MR MOTI: Yes it's written there at 3/10 which means it's October 1991 and it's the white BMW.
MR MOOIJ: But what happened to the vehicle after the robbery?
MR MOTI: We crashed and it was left on the scene of the crash.
MR MOOIJ: And the one in number 10?
MR MOTI: I cannot remember this one but I think and I assume that it was repossessed for one of the operations here because there at prison they didn't give me the dates on which these cars were repossessed so ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Moti please, you said that you can't remember the details of the vehicle, is that correct?
MR MOTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the facts?
MR MOTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: That's the fact of the matter. It's not helping us to decide this case to speculate on what could have happened and what you were shown at the prison.
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright? Just stick to the facts. Mr Mooij?
MR MOOIJ: Mr Moti, you told the police and it's part of the record, concerning a number of these operations, you told the police what your share was from the proceeds of these operations. You mentioned figures of 20 000 and 16 000 and 18 000 and 20 000. What happened to that money that you received?
MR MOTI: I never received even a cent. The reason I said that, I was trying to protect the unit and the members that were left behind because imagine if I had said to the person of Mr Charles Landman that no, these operations were political operations aimed at advancing our political aims and objectives. Do you really think that I would be here today?
MR MOOIJ: Well, Mr Moti, I put it to you that the PAC was unbanned in 1990, in February of 1990, correct?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Yes, now at no stage, not during the trial, not during your dealings with the police, not once did you mention any political activity at all.
MR MOTI: That shows that I stick to my training because as an APLA cadre I was guided by the 15 points of attention which says keep to the strictest rules of secrecy, never surrender to the enemy. So here I was in the hands of the enemy, was I supposed to compromise other cadres and the party at large?
MR MOOIJ: But you mentioned to the police, especially after the Dube incident, you mentioned to the police the exact amount of money that you received?
MR MOTI: Yes, I said I got so and so and so. When you go to a so-called peace officer or maybe a magistrate or whatever and maybe you are referred to by Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad, he knows everything about you before you arrive there. But I'm not trying to say he said that I must say that. I said it myself because I wouldn't have went there and said we robbed. The question would be "where is the money?" So I was trying to make the operation look as if, were committed by ordinary criminals for their own benefit. So I have to tell you.
MR MOOIJ: Is it not correct that shortly after these robberies you spent money on the house that you were living in, a substantial amount of money on renovating that house?
MR MOTI: I was living in a room and most cases I was living in my aunt's house. I had a room there and outside room and because Mr Diederichs now and then went there so I didn't go there. The room that I was hiring, I paid something like R60 a month so it's irrelevant for you to say I renovated that house. How can I renovate a house that doesn't even belong to me?
CHAIRPERSON: So your short answer to the question is no, it's not correct?
MR MOTI: It's not correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now next time if Mr Mooij asks you another question, please try that route.
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright?
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: It will greatly assist us.
MR MOTI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Us all, otherwise we'll sit here till midnight, alright?
MR MOOIJ: The house that I was referring to, Mr Moti, was not your aunt's house, it was your parent's house. That was the house that you renovated.
CHAIRPERSON: What's your response, do you agree or disagree?
MR MOTI: I disagree.
MR MOOIJ: Is it also not correct that you put money that you received as your share from the robberies into your sister's account, banking account?
MR MOTI: That is not correct.
MR MOOIJ: Because Officer Diederichs will be called if necessary to give that evidence, that that's what their investigation showed.
MR MOTI: Okay, call him.
MR MOOIJ: And is it also not correct that you gave approximately R150 000 to a person in Cape Town in a form of mandrax?
MR MOTI: It is not correct, where would I get that money?
MR MOOIJ: Should we go over the amounts involved in the robbery again, Mr Moti?
MR MOTI: Those amounts were surrendered to the commander so it shows, it goes without saying that I was left with nothing after surrendering everything to the commander.
MR MOOIJ: Now you mentioned a while ago that when you got to your commander's house one night, he told you to come early the next morning and that you had to get a vehicle to carry out a certain operation, do you remember that?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: And you also said that when you arrived there, there were a number of cadres there, amongst other's Themba Radebe?
MR MOTI: Yes, there were two cadres, three with the commander.
MR MOOIJ: Well you didn't specify the number, you said there were some other cadres there?
MR MOTI: It's commanders house, I said Peter Nkosi and Themba. The commanders place.
MR MOOIJ: Now don't you find it strange that from the evidence led on behalf of Mr Maseko and also Mr Maseko that Themba was unknown to them as being a member of APLA?
MR MOTI: I even found it strange when he said I was not a member of APLA. So ask about myself.
MR MOOIJ: You mentioned that Themba was there and according to the evidence, Themba was not a member of APLA.
MR MOTI: He even said I was not and I am and Themba is a member of APLA.
MR MOOIJ: So you're saying that that evidence ...(intervention)
MR MOTI: Is not true.
MR MOOIJ: It's not true, it's a lie?
ADV SANDI: Where is Themba now, do you know?
MR MOTI: Yes, he is here.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MR MOOIJ: Will Themba be called to give evidence on your behalf?
MR MOTI: You are going to call him or ...?
MR MOOIJ: I'm asking you, Mr Moti, I'm asking you whether Themba will be called to give evidence on your behalf.
MR MOTI: It's up to the representative but Themba has got his own views about the process so I don't know, I don't want to answer on behalf of Themba. He may be called because he is here.
MR MOOIJ: How many incidents were there at this particular store, East Avenue Bottle Store involving a robbery?
MR MOTI: You said how many incidents?
MR MOOIJ: Yes, how many robberies were there?
MR MOTI: It's one robbery. We repossessed from Fidelity Guards.
MR MOOIJ: Let's have a look at page 10 of your application. Operation 18, place Eldorado Bottle Store. Eldorado East Avenue Bottle Store, it's at the top of the page. Armed robbery of Fidelity Guards. Then the next one, operation 19, Eldorado Park First Avenue Bottle Store, not remembered. The details are exactly the same.
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Do you see that?
MR MOTI: I don't remember. Yes.
MR MOOIJ: So you're saying there was only one robbery there?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Are you absolutely sure about that?
MR MOTI: Yes.
MR MOOIJ: Chairperson, is it possible for me to enquire how long the proceedings will still last for today?
CHAIRPERSON: Have you still got a great deal of ground to cover?
MR MOOIJ: Yes I have Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have?
MR MOOIJ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well then will it be convenient for you if we were to adjourn at this stage?
MR MOOIJ: I see it is already after 5, so it may just be a good time to adjourn.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We have reached the end of the proceedings today. We will have to reconvene, adjourn the matter and reconvene tomorrow morning in this venue and to recommence with this matter at 9 o'clock in the morning and hopefully there won't be any cause for delays tomorrow. Unfortunately we have a bit of a backlog on our hearings roll so we would like to start with this matter promptly in the morning, but we will adjourn at this stage.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
