JUDGE WILSON: Right, the next matter?
MR BLACK: The next matter is the matter of Mr Phineas Ndlovu. It is application number 1702/96. In this matter I may inform the Committee that all the victims and relatives are in fact present and three of the victims will want to give evidence in this matter and perhaps depending on what Mr Ndlovu says, may wish to cross-examine, put questions to him.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, you have been connected with this matter in one capacity or another for some time. We have had the papers served on us of the various applications and of such matters, and it appears there were originally a number of persons involved in this incident and that - five or six weren't there?
MR CURRIN: Six.
JUDGE WILSON: Six. And that all the others, save for the applicant, have been granted some form of relief. They are no longer serving their sentences, either indemnity or as a result of negotiations. A recommendation was made that the applicant should be treated in the same way. The only information we have or the only information I have been able to see, subject to anything Mr Black may point out, is that it was refused. But no grounds are set out in the papers
before us. So perhaps you could tell us briefly, if you know of what the reasons were or are.
MR CURRIN: I too have not been given the reasons. So I am not in a position to enlighten you, other than to say that -well, I don't know, because the Minister of Justice recommended, if he accepted our recommendation, that is the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation and made a recommendation to the President. So I am not really in a position to say why the President decided not to grant amnesty in terms of the previous legislation.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you informed us that the victims are present and that they would like to cross-examine the applicant maybe. Have they got any legal representation?
MR BLACK: No, Mr Commissioner, they haven't any legal representation. I canvassed that issue with them. They don't - I have explained fully the procedure and what the purpose of this hearing is all about and that it is not a re-trial as it were. They feel that they are quite satisfied if they don't have any legal representation and I will assist them in every possible way.
ADV DE JAGER: They have been informed of their rights that they could make use of legal aid and they prefer not to have legal or they are satisfied not to have legal representation and that you could represent them in this matter?
MR BLACK: That is so. I did tell them that they are entitled to legal representation and financial assistance would be afforded in any other way possible, and that I would be assisting them in this instance, should they require any form of legal assistance.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, one other matter which I will ask
you to confirm if I am correct in this, and that is that apart from the recommendation by the Minister, the Attorney-General was asked to comment on the applications of all of them, and in a letter dated the 23rd of March 1993 he put all six of them in the same category. He did not in any way seek to say that the present applicant should be treated differently. His words were "die applicant en sy mede-beskuldigdes se optrede nie 'n politieke merk daar stel nie". So it was, he treated them all as having the same purpose.
MR CURRIN: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: You may carry on.
MR CURRIN: Could I then call the applicant, Phineas Ndlovu.
Mr Chairman, Mr Ndlovu will testify in English, he is fluent in English, so there will not be a need to translate his evidence.
PHINEAS NDLOVU: (sworn states)
ADV DE JAGER: But for the sake of the victims, I think that they have got, if the people sitting there, they have got earphones and it will be translated for their benefit.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ndlovu, you can move that loudspeaker across in front of you and a little closer to you. That will be better, I think.
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Ndlovu, your amnesty application was drafted by you with the assistance of my assistant, Paula McBride. You have a copy of that application. Do you have it with you?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is in front of that desk.
MR CURRIN: I would just ask you to, in broad terms, to confirm the content of the application insofar as it relates to your personal knowledge. Those aspects which relate to
your personal knowledge, I would just in broad terms like you to confirm. Is its contents correct as far as you know?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. Before we deal with the actual incident which resulted in the deaths of four people, I would like you to give some background information to the Commission, to the Amnesty Committee, and I would like you to start with your activities, in general terms, your activities as a young comrade in Daveyton during the mid-eighties, starting with how you became a comrade.
MR NDLOVU: During the years of eighties, it was in the year 1983 that the government decided to legislate or pass laws that would say there were age limitations to education. I was not affected by that immediately but as one of the people who were at high school, we took that as an offence because we regarded that there was no age limit in education, and why was this being fostered to us as students of the other race. And immediately thereof I, with my fellow students, challenged the government. We boycotted classes, we went on rampage, helping workers with their consumer boycott and all other means that would help us register our protest against what was being fostered upon us.
During those years it became evident to me that all along I was not aware of the system that had given me the inferior education, and it is then that I realised that there are people like Comrade Mandela and others, who have been jailed for speaking out against oppression that is being enforced on us. It is then that I became aware of the political environment that I lived in, day in and day out. ADV DE JAGER: What was your age then?
MR NDLOVU: My age was 18.
MR CURRIN: At what stage - sorry.
ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not switched on).
MR NDLOVU: 1983.
ADV DE JAGER: But weren't you born in 1986, ag, 1968?
MR NDLOVU: 1968, yes, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: I think he meant when the offence was committed he was 18. You can continue.
MR NDLOVU: It is then that I found homage in school politics and they extended, to some extent, to the politics outside the environment in the schools, that I became part of the youth that was to oversee that in the location there was generally smooth running of things, namely, that our community should get rid of - should be a crime-free violence, that the frustrations that our fellow brothers who had passed their matric and couldn't have jobs were taking out on our fellow parents. They would, upon having not had maybe, for instance, university entrance marks, they would end up having no jobs. They would resort back to forming gangsters that would rob our parents, who by then would have woken up at four am to go and work for whatever peanuts that is being offered in those firms where they worked hard and toiled, but upon the coming day of salary, you would find our frustrated brothers - some who are literate and some who are illiterate - but who could not face the reason why they have been deprived of all the luxuries that our fellow South Africans of other colours were enjoying, would take their anger on our very fragile parents and take their little monies and our families would suffer as a result of that. Our sisters would not move around the location after the sun has set, because there was this element of our fellow
brothers having turned themselves into bandits. They would take them, rob them, rape them and do whatever they felt, what could suit their anger or would quench it for that matter. And those duties we had to take responsibility as youth to make it a point that this does not happen, and that the whole people who have been diverted from the national goal, that is to seek freedom and enjoy whatever South Africa has to offer, equally.
MR CURRIN: Before you go on, I would just like you to pause for a moment and tell the members of the Committee about the effectiveness of the police in addressing ordinary crime in the townships at that particular time, and in Daveyton at that particular time. We know about their involvement in the politics of the townships, but addressing ordinary crime. How effective were the police and why did the youth take it upon themselves to play a role in law and order?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, how effective are they today?
MR CURRIN: Well, that is a question which maybe one can deal with in argument. But he must answer in the context of his experience in his township in Daveyton in the 1980's.
MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before, it was chaotic, because police could not render us service that we so much required. And one disturbing element is that police in fact, we had agreements before with them. As student congress we used to go out and disarm our fellow brothers of weapons of that, weapons that killed our nation and we took those weapons, and handed them over to the police. But in return the police were not to be trusted. They took those very same weapons and gave it to gang members. So as to fight comrades. So this was the reason why the police could no longer be trusted and their effectiveness thereof was not
felt by us as a community.
And I should further state that upon realising this, there was a call that was made through the underground movement, the publications of Sichaba that police who were residing in our areas, because really, there was no one who was in the middle during the struggle. It is either you were with us or you were with the enemy. So police had already chosen their side. By the mere virtue of being a police and being on the other side of race, we would take you as a traitor and a collaborator. And when the era came that we should read of policeman who were residing with us, stooges, informers and all that, it is then that we realised that the error that we made, we have armed people that could use these weapons effectively or worse, in maiming us, people who are trying to create an environment that is free for the launching of freedom of our people.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. Could you at this stage indicate your involvement in organisational politics at the time. What organisations and/or political structures were you involved in Daveyton at that stage?
MR NDLOVU: I was involved in Daveyton Student Congress and Daveyton Youth Congress, which were the affiliates of UDF. Ultimately the affiliate of the ANC or the external wing, as it has been referred by the previous regime.
MR CURRIN: Did you hold any office in either of those organisations?
MR NDLOVU: During those years we decided to name and divide our locations and name them after progressive countries rather, who were espoused to the ideology of communism. I was the chairman of a liberated zone called Russia.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. You have spoken about involvement in law and order activities and in your application there is a section that deals with people's courts. Did you play any role in people's courts, and if so, what was that role?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did play a role in the people's court. I was in fact the chairman in the people's court, and I had to take decisions of handing down sentences. And above all that, I had the task as well as with other comrades, to make sure that those who were offenders are being sought and brought to book. Because it was not everyone who would come voluntarily as if in a court of law is happening today.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, in what year were you a chairperson of the people's court in your area? What year was it when you were the chairperson of the people's court in your area?
MR NDLOVU: 1983 to 1985.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you chairman of the people's court at the age of 15?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: That question really prompts another aspect which I would like to canvass with you. At the tender age of 15 when youngsters of that age should be on soccer fields playing football and should be having fun with their peer group, you were a highly politicised young activist. Could you tell us what, if you are able, to tell us what that did to your psyche, to your soul, to your persona, bearing in mind this incredible responsibility that you had on your shoulders, as a chairperson of a people's court of taking the struggle forward. How did you deal with this as a person at that age?
MR NDLOVU: As a person it affected me in more than one way. My school job suffered a lot. Evidently I was a very brilliant student. If I had failed, really it would be in
the mid-year examination, and I would have been number 3, that would be a failure. But come December, I wouldn't let my parents down. I would make it a point that I am number 1. So in a way it did affect me. I started disliking some subjects, for instance Afrikaans, as it was branded then, that it was the language of the oppressor and in education you really had to pass three of these languages, and it was difficult for me to deal with that as such.
In life generally, at home there was no longer peace between myself and my family. My place was frequented by security police and the soldiers and they would come, assault my mom and I had to leave my home. I had to stay in scrap cars to sleep there and go home only to fetch lunch or to sneak in and have a bath and then go to school. At school as well, I had to hide when I had to come out of school, because the area as there was turmoil at the time you would that it is frequented by police. And I guess I didn't have much of sleep, because any car that passed by or gave sound of, the one I know - Casspirs, Hippos or (indistinct) that were used by the SAP would eventually give the call that I should wake up and start running.
What is worst of all, I had to resort to violence as there were no other means of sjambokking people who had been convicted or found guilty in a people's court. And to some aspects some hated me but it was okay to have enemies for doing the right thing.
As of showing people that I did have feelings, I had to hide them. I didn't have to have feelings. The duties that I was called upon to do, didn't allow me just like any young person at the time, to be spoilt by my mom, to seek love of parents and what have you, I didn't have time for that.
I missed all those years.
ADV DE JAGER: How did you become chairman of the people's court, who appointed or chose you?
MR NDLOVU: I was chosen by my comrade colleagues.
MR CURRIN: Were they of similar age? What ages were they, your colleagues?
MR NDLOVU: They varied, M'Lord, from the youngest would be round about 9, 10 and there were older ones as well, who would range from 30 and below. Being a comrade really at the time didn't have to be determined by the age one was in.
MR CURRIN: Did you show leadership qualities, is that why you were chosen as the chairperson? Were you regarded as one of the leaders?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I was regarded as one of the leaders, because everything that had to be done, if it wasn't done properly, in or around the location, then I would be the one who is called to come and make sure that everything is in accordance. The were other liberated zones and during that time in our society, we had people in gang members who were most feared. People who you would hear stories that they have been to places as far as Lesotho to go and perform their African ritual or cultural or what have you, to strengthen themselves to create images that they be feared. Should anyone of that nature suffer they would all resort that the only place where we could find the solution or someone who could deal with this person, it is to go to Russia and bring back those comrades.
MR CURRIN: Would you just bear with me for a moment. I just want to confer with my assistant.
MR BLACK: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I was just going to use this
opportunity to satisfy myself that the victims are - that we can continue, Sir.
MR CURRIN: Mr Ndlovu, I would now want us to move to the incident which occurred on the 2nd of June 1987.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you could please enquire from the victims whether they could follow what is going on or whether they need assistance there?
MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman, they are following the proceedings.
MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could we now talk about the incident on the 2nd of June 1987, in which you were involved and which resulted in the tragic death of four people. I think you should - I would like you to start by telling us about your visit to the shebeen, and we will then take the evidence from there.
MR NDLOVU: On the said day when we reached the entrance of the said place, we met on the way out and a security police member who was known to be notorious for his acts of torturing us comrades, and who was looking for us, so as to apprehend us with his colleagues to the system. And this infuriated us, because he already knew who we were and we exchanged bitter looks and we went into the café. And my comrade popped out the sum of R10,00 and bought some food so that we could have some supper before we went to our hiding places. But however, upon that he questioned why was that place being frequented by the police and why Mr Masupa had had a conversation with that man.
MR CURRIN: The Masupa you refer to, is that Hendrik?
MR NDLOVU: Hendrik.
MR CURRIN: Masupa.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord. And upon that, Mr Masupa, that
is Hendrik, answered arrogantly and started telling us that he knew all about our moves, places we sleep in and he knew how to deal with us and he was going to inform Sfuti and we must know now that they know of us, we won't be a neck or we won't bother them anymore with our searches that we used to do. And we usually on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, there was this routine that we normally undergone to search shebeens and rid of weapons of that that were carried by our fellow citizens. So that whatever happens after that they could not kill one another. So he started boasting that we won't be able to bother them anymore about that, because we were going in.
That infuriated us and we felt that something must be done and it had to be done drastically. Because in one of the days, a week before or so, we were standing in the very - it is a bigger complex, we were standing on the other end, and the very same man we had just passed on the doorway, he came and described me with the tooth that I am having here. I had a knock and it changed or tainted the colour of my teeth, and he said he knew now that that, he used my name that was not known to people outside the ranks, that is Barrah-Barrah, because they often said I don't laugh. So they used that very name and described that the one with the pinkish tooth and immediately I saw that he was accosting me and I ran off. Upon us researching and trying to gather information as to how did it come about with this description and the name, we were told that before he came to this other end, he had stopped on that other end to speak to Mr Masupa. As he boasted about this now, the whole thing came into a pattern. We now realised that what we were dealing with was someone who had gone out of the way to
inform about us and our activities.
We then decided to fight him but fighting him physically was not good anyway, because there were many, as you would be aware, there are two - it's a two-storey place, on the top is a shebeen and beneath it is a café where food and other materials is being sold. So there are many people there and workers who were there. So they started coming in, all of them on top of us. Upon that scuffle two Casspirs accosted that area and we ran off.
When we ran off we decided that it was time that we talked and read a public lesson, that first, he cannot live with us and yet work for the other side. It is then that we decided to go and purchase fuel and we came back with that fuel. As it was the culture then, we decided to go and burn down where he laid his head, meaning his home.
When we reached that place we knocked and we were asked who are you, and we responded "comrades". The door was opened and we then informed them of our intentions. Angry as we were, whilst I was informing them of our intentions, petrol was poured to the floor and I asked my comrade to wait so that we could evacuate people inside. But in that confusion a stick of match was lit. I extinguished it and I tried to plead with the people to go out, but seemingly their attitude had been that having known us, as we are from the very same area, they thought either we are bluffing or as they usually referred to us, because we were many of us who had been comrades, for that matter, had been referred to as "(...indistinct)", because either at home we wouldn't have, we didn't have enough money to be dressed neatly like our counterparts, or they were so fortunate to have a café
and a shebeen on top, so they could afford.
So we were demeaned in words and we felt that this could not go on any longer. As I was talking, my comrades were angry, I was angry myself but what we wanted to do was to burn down the house, so as to indicate that anyone who should not even dare think of selling us out to the security.
The second stick was lit. I managed as well to extinguish that stick, and I tried to talk to the people. The stove was on, as I remember very well, it was hot. It was red, in fact, on top, and I even thought that the way this had created a smell of petrol in the house, it was going to explode. So I pleaded with people to hurry up and get out. But it couldn't happen.
Finally, I couldn't catch the other stick. It came in front of me and it touched the fuel. We were all inside the house and the house was in flames.
The door was closed and the door lock had broken. It was not in proper shape, that one could just pull it once and open. So we fought with the door as the house was in fire. I was in flames. Apparently when the fuel was poured, the comrade was pouring petrol on the floor. He had initially poured petrol in my legs. I was wearing a cotton sock. So it absorbed a lot of petrol. I was in flames as well.
Ultimately I managed to put my finger in and pressed it against the door, the door lock, because it had two holes, but it had broken in-between, so I managed to push it in and open whilst I was in flame. The door was opened. We all moved out.
That is the last time I left the scene. We ran out,
probably a sound of windows breaking down, I could hear it whilst we were walking away and people screaming.
MR CURRIN: In your evidence - sorry.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, sorry. You ran away while you were in flames, your clothes wetted with petrol?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I suffered burn injuries as a result. I had to be hospitalised and upon being hospitalised I met the family of the victims and the deceased in the hospital. I was there as well.
ADV DE JAGER: How did you extinguish the flames?
MR NDLOVU: Upon getting out in the gate, is a gravel, I should say, it is the gravel road. I managed to pour soil on top of the flames and my comrades helped me to extinguish the flames that were in my clothes.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, just as a matter of information, I am not sure whether Mr Black has informed you that we do have a copy of the entire court record, which we would, obviously, make available to you. In that record there is evidence about the fact that Mr Ndlovu did suffer burn wounds and was hospitalised.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, why wasn't this court record made available to us before the hearing started, so that we could study it and put questions about it?
MR CURRIN: I didn't know until very recently that you didn't have a copy of the record. This was my copy of my record and I did not ...
ADV DE JAGER: I was present last week when we were phoned about it and we requested to forward a copy of the record, if you had one in your possession and we never received it.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I was in Lesotho unfortunately.
ADV DE JAGER: Well, your assistant - Mr Black spoke to her ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: Yes, but I had the record with me. So I was in Cape Town and then I went to Lesotho and I had the record with me for my own preparation purposes. I was unaware of the fact until the last, I think yesterday or the day before, did I find out that you in fact didn't have a copy of the record. My assistant tells me that Mr Kleynhans of the indemnity office also has a copy of this record and that your Committee and personnel were referred to Mr Kleynhans' office to get yourselves a copy from - before Mr Black got involved, right from when the application was originally lodged.
Be that as it may, as I say I am - there are two volumes which are not all that extensive which deal comprehensively with the evidence and I will, since you obviously don't have your own copy, which I heard, as I say when I was in Lesotho, I will make it available to you to give you an opportunity to study it thoroughly and I will also indicate during the course of the evidence the extent or those aspects of the testimony which differ from that at the hearing so that you are aware of those differences.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, were you made aware of the fact that Mr Kleynhans had a copy of the record, or that he was asked about the record?
MR BLACK: No, after the perusal of the application, throughout this application there was reference made to the record. There are references made to pages of the record.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
MR BLACK: I have immediately I had a number of discussions on this matter with Mr Currin's assistant, and she informed
me that he has a copy, complete set of the record. I was asking for copies of that record. They were never made available to me and I was at one stage told to get hold of Mr Kleynhans, who was away at that stage. He was away on Easter vacation and I enquired from the indemnity offices and the correctional services people if they have any copy of a complete record. What they have in their possession, according to me, is what is contained in the bundle of documents which is before the Court. There is no complete court record available.
JUDGE WILSON: Have you been informed that it is important to make contact with Mr Kleynhans and enquire about records he has, in all applications, all cases where there have been applications for indemnity?
MR BLACK: Yes, we had ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Because this is a matter that Mr De Jager and I raised a considerable time ago, after we had visited and seen the records there available, that this should be done in every case.
MR BLACK: Well, in this case the indemnity record, as the Committee will notice, is contained in the bundle before the Court. That is all that was forwarded to us. The applications for indemnity and the reasons for refusal. That is the correspondence contained in the court - in the file.
JUDGE WILSON: What page is this, the application is made for a copy of the record if available?
MR BLACK: I will have to look at the original files, but as my - as the assistant to Mr Currin says, that application was dealt with by another member of the - before I came to join the Commission.
JUDGE WILSON: This is what worries me. I feel, and I am sure the other members of the Committee agree with me, that as a matter of course application should be made to obtain copies of the complete indemnity records, if they are available, and it is clear from this application that a copy of the record was - that there was a record and there was references made, volume 1, page 58; volume 1, page 663, and so it goes on.
MR BLACK: That is so. Mr Chairman, we - our section, the amnesty section must have applied because a record was or a file rather, was used, furnished to us by the indemnity people. That has enabled us to compile this bundle. But on reading the amended or the annexure submitted by Mr Currin, to which he is referring to court records, or volumes of the court record, I immediately, when I read that, telephonically I was in touch and in contact with Mrs McBride and she said she would convey this to Mr Currin, and get a copy - make available to us a copy of the court record.
JUDGE WILSON: What worries me is the lack of the contact with Mr Kleynhans and the records, official records that are already in possession - they were in possession of the indemnity committee.
MR BLACK: Mr Kleynhans must ...
JUDGE WILSON: And we are told now that he has a copy of the record.
MR BLACK: Well, not according to our - the notes as a result with enquiries made with Mr Kleynhans by us. Mr Kleynhans' office furnished us with a complete file which they had in their possession.
MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In the trial when you
testified, there was no evidence by you or any of your co-accused about having met a member of the security forces at the entrance to the shebeen or any evidence about the discussion you had with Hendrik or any reference to your view, your belief that Hendrik was an informer. Could you please explain the fact that none of this was mentioned during the trial and you are raising it now in public for the first time?
MR NDLOVU: For starters, I should mention that the very same people as I have indicated that it is the security branch, is the very same people who arrested us, and you wouldn't dare say something that would offend them. As it would appear in the record, we were assaulted, even though we had suffered burn wounds, we were assaulted and we had to say what would not put us in danger. But as in during the trial proceedings, the regime had made it very clear, that anyone who is found guilty of any crime that relates to arson, necklace, all those acts that they were rendering barbaric, horrendous or whatever term that they used at the time, would ultimately get the maximum sentence, of which is the death penalty. That sobered us, that we need to do something drastically, because there would be no extenuating circumstances as the then head of this country, Mr P W Botha had indicated, that he will come down on us very hard. That in itself made us aware that we didn't - we were prepared to be martyrs of the struggle, but should there be any alternative that we could survive whatever onslaught or attack from the enemy, then surely we had to use it. That is why we resorted in trying to come up with something that would create extenuating circumstances.
MR CURRIN: In the - would it be correct to say that what
you have said, that you went out of your way to depoliticise the incident?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, it was that it had to be done. We even came to an agreement that even our other comrades who were at the time minors, the State afforded them the services of a social worker and we warned them strongly that that should not suffice at any cost, but it is unfortunate that during the deliberations by Justice De Klerk, when we were sentenced, it then came out that they had in fact given us out. Because we believed, as we have told them, that any mention of that would ultimately qualify us for that.
MR CURRIN: Any mention of what?
MR NDLOVU: Of the fact that this was a political issue and that what we were doing was executing orders that have been given to us through the underground structures, of reeding informers, stooges and collaborators of the State out of our communities. But unfortunately this did surface on the report of the social worker that was rendered to do this. And it created a division amongst us. Because when we had already been sentenced, we could not speak or see each other eye to eye as comrades. For the mere fact that that has been mentioned and we had come to an agreement that it should not be so.
MR CURRIN: In your evidence and in the evidence at the trial, the question of alcohol was raised, and you and others admitted or said that you had consumed, if I remember correctly, half a dozen bottles of quart and a bottle of Mainstay Caine, prior to going to the shebeen. Is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that was mentioned in the trial, and as I have just indicated before, those were means to get us off
the sentence that was hanging above our shoulders and we decided that in most cases that we have read through papers, heard from the news, we had heard and we had heard and we had realised that in most of the cases, when people pleaded insanity or pleaded that they were under the influence of drugs, what-have-you, liquor, et cetera, some kind of leniency was being shown that they were not responsible for their actions, and that ultimately would help us create extenuating circumstances that would get us off the death sentence.
MR CURRIN: You had five co-accused. There were six of you that were involved in this incident, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: Do you know on what basis four of you were released early? Released, certainly a considerable time ago.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I am aware that the key co-accused which is Johannes Setocho was released on April 25th 1991, as a result of agreements between the organisation, the African National Congress and the then regime. And the other three who I had been with in maximum after my - after the commuting of the death sentence that I was sentenced to, were released in 1992 during the record of understanding. And the other one has since been released in 1995 in Modderbee Prison.
MR CURRIN: So the four that were released for political reasons as far as you know, were released as a result of political deals that were reached between the then government and the African National Congress.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you a member of the ANC?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I am a member of the African National Congress.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they negotiate on behalf of the others for their release?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is so.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they negotiate for your release too?
MR NDLOVU: Pardon me, M'Lord?
ADV DE JAGER: Did the African National Congress negotiate for your release also?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they come back and report to you?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, they did come back and report to me.
ADV DE JAGER: Why did they say, why weren't you released then?
MR NDLOVU: Initially in 1992 I was informed that when a list was made of political prisoners, that were handed in to the government, an error happened, and it was indicated in the 1994 Human Rights Commission report that a certain Phineas Ndlovu was released in my place. So that was the explanation that I got. But however, upon pursuing this the then Minister of Justice, Minister Kobie Coetzee, said he was going to look to the matter and see what could be done, because some where released and some were not, and when I enquired, the last I heard of it is that the Minister had forwarded the recommendations that I be released to the office of the State President. And ever since I was made aware that the opposition party in government wouldn't allow that I be released alone, and that a deal need to be struck politically that this should go across the political spectrum. If I be released alone as a member of the ANC, it would be taken as - it would offend other parties, so to
speak. So the process need to be revisited and ultimately I was informed that I need to look at this from the angle that the TRC, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was being installed and ultimately I will be afforded an opportunity to come and present my case and the decision would lie entirely upon the Commission.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I think it would be helpful just for me to give a - just a very brief explanation because I do know what happened in his particular case. His name was left off as a result of an administrative error. There was at the time a lot of backwards and forwarding and running and trying to organise this list of names of people that were to be submitted. His is not the only name that was left off. There are other cases where groups of people were found guilty and three or four or five or six of a larger group's names appeared whereas others did not appear. When you read through this record you will see that his involvement was no more or no less than the others. There is no reason in regard to the actual crime that would justify his name being left off. It was purely an administrative error. My enquiries a couple of years ago, indicated that that was in fact the case. The reason why, and I don't, I can't tell you why President Mandela did not approve the - what was in President Mandela's mind as to why he did not approve the recommendation, but the information that I got from other sources and my understanding of discussions that I had with other political players, was that throughout that period there were deals that were being struck; if we release a person from the left then we must release a person from the right, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And that negotiation was going on right through the early nineties and at some stage there was a decision that they would stop releasing people on political deals and hand it over to the Truth Commission and at the end of the day let the Truth Commission decide.
Another one, for example, which was similar was the case of Brian Mitchell. In my capacity as chairperson of that advisory committee, we also recommended that Brian Mitchell be released. And it was - because there was this general decision once it was known that there was going to be an amnesty committee as part of the Truth Commission, they decided to leave it up to the Amnesty Committee to deal with the matters as and when they came before the Committee. So one can say that they really transferred the responsibility of dealing with these matters to yourselves.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, when was this administrative error made, which resulted in his name being omitted?
MR CURRIN: It was made at the time that the names were submitted before the Record of Understanding which was in 1991, sorry 1992. And if it would be necessary for you, one could get all the documentation relating to the background and the correspondence and the actual agreement and the names that were part of that Record of Understanding, and one could also speak to - which I have done - with members of the National Executive of the African National Congress, who confirmed to me that the omission of certain names was purely an error. It was not a decision that was taken on merit, that Phineas' involvement, for example, was more than the others and therefore they were not putting his name on the list.
MS KHAMPEPE: Speaking for myself (microphone not switched on - indistinct).
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's mike not switched on - indistinct).
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct). Sorry. Your Committee recommended in 1995 that he should be released and you forwarded a list of ten persons and six of them were released and four not.
MR CURRIN: That's why I don't - I can't understand why of the ten that were forwarded, six were released and four were not. But I do know that there had been a decision in 1995 that since the Truth Commission was being established and there was going to be an Amnesty Committee, that committee should deal with these difficult cases, as they were termed. That is my information.
With regard to all the documentation, the records, the agreements, the Record of Understanding, the history, the background to that, all of that documentation is available at the office of the Indemnity Board in Pretoria. I know that it is there because I have seen it when I was involved as the chairperson of the Advisory Committee. We worked from all that documentation. So it is there and one could get it either from Mr Kleynhans or one of his assistants.
When you went to the house and you threw petrol in the house, how many of the comrades, the accused were in the house at the time?
MR NDLOVU: I can't be precise but almost all of us, but I think there was one co-accused who was left outside, that could be Sitoga.
MR CURRIN: Yes.
MR NDLOVU: Almost five of us were in the house.
MR CURRIN: And it is clear from the record that before the fire started the people in the house knew that you were in the house. You say that you had dialogue with them.
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Was it your intention that people should die in this fire?
MR NDLOVU: No, I have never intended to kill anyone. Our intention was to burn down the house. But however, things didn't go as we anticipated. And as a result of our actions, people died, but never there was any agreement between us to kill anyone on that said day. It was never our intention to kill. We went there with the sole purpose of burning down the house, but as a result of that people died.
MR CURRIN: How did you at the time feel about the fact that your action had resulted in the death of four people?
MR NDLOVU: I felt sad and as it could be seen, when I was asked this during the cross-examination in the Supreme Circuit Court, Supreme Court, I broke down twice, because I regretted that people died as a result of my action. Though I didn't intend to do that, but any death of a fellow citizen in this country is regrettable. I have been raised in a family. I had once lost my uncle. I know the pain, I know the grief. I have lost my grandfather and I know how painful it is to lose someone who is dear and who is a family.
MR CURRIN: You mentioned that you were in hospital with other members of the family, with Hendrik's family members and members of the family who had lost loved ones in this incident, did they know that you, they knew that you were a person that was responsible for the fire?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, they knew and they were angry. They said
horrible things. I understood it and I took it that yes, they were right to say those things, they were feeling a pain and as a result of my action they have lost loved ones, and ... (intervention).
MR CURRIN: Did you - carry on.
MR NDLOVU: And to my knowledge I knew that if they had opportunity or time to do it, they could avenge that, they could kill me as well. That's how angry they were. I even at some stage feared for my life, thinking that upon visit they would send people to avenge the loss of their loved ones.
MR CURRIN: Did you approach them at all while you were in hospital? Was it opportune, was there a lot of time for you to approach them and to talk about what you had done?
MR NDLOVU: The first time we met it was in a place where there are two doors. I take it is a room for people who have been seriously injured and the other room for people with minor burn injuries. And when we met at the door, they hurled abusive words and all that, but I kept saying to them "I'm sorry you lost people. Hadn't it been for Hendrik's actions we wouldn't be in this situation". I kept, I apologised and I knew they wouldn't hear me, because of the pain they were in.
MR CURRIN: Now as you sit here before the Amnesty Committee, and on your left-hand side there are members of the family who lost their loved ones, is there anything that you would like to say here in public to them?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, there is. For the past ten years, even during my stay in death row, I have been agonising and having this pain, that I have caused people pain as a result of my actions, and it cannot end up there. I know it is
difficult but today I am happy that I am going to have an opportunity to say it really from the depth of my heart, not as a token of trying to ease them or ease my conscience, I really am sorry that as a result of my action and my comrades you had to lose loved ones. Nothing can replace life. I know how important is life. Believe me, even in death row, I wasn't worried that I was going to hang, I was worried that my actions have led to a situation that you should lose loved ones. I am sorry. I know saying sorry is something that can be very simple. It is simple to say I am sorry. You can make an error. But forgiving is something else. I don't expect you to forgive me. I know it is difficult, but I here and now apologise to you from the depth of my heart and I believe that you will consider forgiving me. I have suffered really, emotionally, physically. I had dreams that one day I will be a doctor, I will be able to afford my mom a decent house and afford him a living. Now all that cannot happen. I am sorry. I hope in your heart of hearts you will find a way, even if you don't forgive me now, but reconcile with me. These wounds I am carrying inside may not heal, I know it is easy to say. You have scars, you have suffered, you have suffered more than I have ever imagine a person can suffer. Life is irreplaceable. If there was anything I would do to bring back all your loved ones, I would believe it, even if it meant I should put my life at stake, I would do it. I am sorry it ever happened, I can't sleep ever since. There is something in my conscience that says but the cause was just, but in the process people lost their lives. I cannot walk up tall with a head, with my head high. Whatever achievements I have, there is still something hanging in my
back. And I ask of you, to please, please, please consider forgiving me. Asking forgiveness from you would be something else, but I here now plead with you. I know it is difficult, but I plead with you to please consider forgiving me. Thank you.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. Could I just confer with my assistant for a moment?
JUDGE WILSON: You look as though you might be some time, Mr Currin. Would this be a suitable stage to take a short adjournment?
MR CURRIN: Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: We will take a short adjournment.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
PHINEAS NDLOVU: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: (cont): The argument was about political issues. Are you saying that there was no argument about money, what are you saying?
MR NDLOVU: No, there was argument about money. In fact it triggered off the whole question of the way Hendrik perceived us and the way he handled himself, but the whole question started around the issue of the money that was used to purchase the foodstuff that we had bought. And ultimately, when Comrade Mahlangu said to him you didn't give us the money and then that started off swearing and yelling at one another. Then it went to that stage where it became evidently clear from his utterances that surely he was not on our side.
MR CURRIN: You said the way in which he perceived you. Could you just, you said it became apparent, the way in which Hendrik perceived you, I suppose, as comrades, became apparent. What did you mean by that, how did he perceive you?
MR NDLOVU: Well, he took us for low-lives. For one, he had a decent house and where he could lay his head. Some of us had parents who were staying in shacks and as a norm in our society we have the standard that people should wear this and that and that. So of us, many of us could not afford that, it is true as a result of our parents could not afford, some of us were many in the families, and all that, and so that made us aware. Of course, that is why our parents could not afford this. And in all this at times he would bar us from enforcing consumer boycotts, because he had interest of the café, and by so doing, to me it appeared that he wanted to be a role model citizen, whereas he was barring us from effecting what would bring changes in our lives and of the entire citizens in this country.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, how would he prevent you from embarking on consumer boycotts, as Hendrik Masupa?
MR NDLOVU: There is a cafe, it is a two-storey building and Mr Masupa works beneath the shebeen that is on top of this two-storey building. So whenever the trucks are coming, he would come out there and come out with the Right Gang members who used to be there and workers who were there. So they would want us to get involved in a fight and that
knowingly at a time there would be plenty and at times they would assist as you would know that, as a result of this consumer boycotts, trucks had to go with guards and what-have-you. So from our point of view, in our number we could outnumber and I would or disarm the guard whatever armoury is he having and effect that. So he used to come out with his friends and the gang members who had no duty, but stayed right there to help and assist and get whatever they can get out of, as compensation for working in that area.
ADV DE JAGER: How many members were they? His supporters, how many supporters or people were staying with him?
MR NDLOVU: It varied, but in the perspective of the café inside, usually there are three males who worked there to off-load and what have-you, and then ... (intervention).
ADV DE JAGER: Give me an idea. I know, but of his supporters that could gang up against your army of comrades?
MR NDLOVU: There would be plus minus 20.
ADV DE JAGER: And your comrades, how many were you?
MR NDLOVU: It depended on the day of how many are available at a time.
ADV DE JAGER: But you have hundreds of comrades, didn't you have?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I have hundreds of comrades, M'Lord, but you would know we are covering a wide range of areas, so we are not despatched all of us in one area.
ADV DE JAGER: But if you wanted, in fact, if you wanted to bring them before the people's court and have a hearing, you could do so?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did, M'Lord, as I have indicated, that he has, if I haven't indicated, he has, as well, appeared before the people's court for a crime-related issue.
ADV DE JAGER: And what was the verdict?
MR NDLOVU: The verdict was guilty.
ADV DE JAGER: On what charge?
MR NDLOVU: Assaulting a person who had been drinking on the upper level in the shebeen, and he took advantage of that man and we found that totally unacceptable, because he ... (intervention).
ADV DE JAGER: Alright. And what did you sentence him to?
MR NDLOVU: We sentenced him to sjambok.
ADV DE JAGER: How many lashes?
MR NDLOVU: We sjambokked him five times.
ADV DE JAGER: And on this particular day, why didn't you summon him to the people's court before deciding to burn his house?
MR NDLOVU: The nature of what he had done compelled us to take the step that would ultimately teach him a lesson, because sjambokking repeatedly would not have helped us.
ADV DE JAGER: But it wasn't his place that you were burning, it was his family's place. He wasn't even staying there. Or he wasn't present up to the time that you burnt
the house?
MR NDLOVU: To us at the time, it was one way of punishing people who had crossed the line and have shown that they are for the other side.
JUDGE WILSON: How old was he?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?
JUDGE WILSON: How old was he?
MR NDLOVU: Hendrik?
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
MR NDLOVU: My estimation would be around 20, 23 to 26, that is, I stand to be corrected on that.
JUDGE WILSON: And he did not live in this house, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: We knew that it was his home there.
JUDGE WILSON: It was his father's house, where his family lived, wasn't it?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And yet you chose to go and burn that house down. Is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: That is correct, M'Lord.
MR CURRIN: In your evidence previously you said we decided to go and burn the place where Hendrik laid his head. Those were your words.
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: You meant that's where he sleeps, that's what you meant?
MR NDLOVU: I believe we had this norm with us, that wherever he grew up or wherever his family was, that was his place. So it is from that reasoning that we took this decision.
MS KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, Mr Ndlovu, where did
Hendrik Masupa live? Where did he go to after work? Did he go to his father's house?
MR NDLOVU: To my knowledge, yes, I knew it to be like that.
ADV DE JAGER: Where were you living?
MR NDLOVU: I was living in fact, I had no stable living place, but my family was on the other side of the street.
ADV DE JAGER: On the other side of the street?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So almost neighbours?
MR NDLOVU: You could say so.
ADV DE JAGER: You knew this family very well?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: Were there children sleeping in that house?
MR NDLOVU: Come again?
ADV DE JAGER: Were there children sleeping in that house?
MR NDLOVU: In fact, that house, it is divided into two. So I wouldn't know if there were children who were sleeping in the main house, because there was a house, a garage that has been turned into a house, or a two-roomed and a garage, something like that. That is separate, but in the very same yard.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, there were children living in the house, so that you are not at such disadvantage. There were children, the record indicates it.
ADV DE JAGER: And when you went into this room and the petrol was thrown there, where was Hendrik?
MR NDLOVU: We had left him behind in the shop.
ADV DE JAGER: So he wasn't present even?
MR NDLOVU: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you see his parents there?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you speak to them?
MR NDLOVU: Yes. When we walked in, if I am still correct, of which I think I am, there was someone making tea.
ADV DE JAGER: And as far as I could see, the people being killed, was Christina, Eunice, Catherine and Melzinah. Were they all women?
MR NDLOVU: I was made to understand so.
ADV DE JAGER: So you weren't concerned about this - were they involved in any political struggle or were they your political enemies?
MR NDLOVU: They were not involved in any political strife. But however, I should say they fell victim because of our intended action of burning down the house and ultimately teaching Hendrik a public lesson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, was it your intention to injure or even kill any of the occupants of Mr Hendrik Masupa's house? Was it your primary intention to do that?
MR NDLOVU: No, I swear to God in heaven, I never had intention or ill intention of hurting anyone, or injuring or killing for that matter. I never had such intention. It never occurred in my mind that as a result of those actions, the consequences will be that people will be injured and others would die.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now when you took that decision to burn the house down, did you foresee that there would be occupants in the house at the time when you decided to burn the house down with petrol?
MR NDLOVU: No, I guess we were so angry as such that we didn't reason that that would ultimately end up with a situation where people are hurt, people are dying.
JUDGE WILSON: What time was it?
MR NDLOVU: It was late, after eight, if I recall very well.
JUDGE WILSON: People are normally at home after eight, aren't they?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.
JUDGE WILSON: And you knew, as your neighbours, that several people lived in this house, didn't you?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, when you succeeded to ultimately open the door and you ran out of the house in flames, did you close the door behind you to keep the occupants of the house inside the house as the house was burning?
MR NDLOVU: No.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did any of your co-assailants do that to your knowledge? Did you see anyone closing the door behind?
MR NDLOVU: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Did any of you do anything to help the people get out of the burning house?
MR NDLOVU: To my knowledge, no, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndlovu, wasn't the whole object of your comrades, as you have stated it on page 5 of your application, there was - to create a revolutionary people's war and in the November of 1985 issue of Sheshaba, the monthly journal of the African National Congress
stated that:
"From the perspective of the underground activity, a very important factor is the systematic assault on and elimination of policemen resident in the townships, stooges and informers."
And then you continue and say you reacted to this command.
MR NDLOVU: That is true.
ADV DE JAGER: So didn't you intend to kill policemen, for instance, living there, and stooges and informers?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, we did, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't Hendrik an informer, according to you?
MR NDLOVU: He was, we perceived him as an informer, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: And did you want to kill him?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, ultimately that was what we should have, we must have done.
ADV DE JAGER: And his family?
MR NDLOVU: His family had nothing to do with it.
ADV DE JAGER: So and his family's property? Did that have anything to do with it?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, it was a general norm that where, even when - even knowingly that I made the - someone who is not responsible for the household of my own, of my parents, but when I have crossed the line or ultimately regarded as having informed on people in their progressive struggle, I would be punished that way too. My household would be burnt. If I were a cop, my wife and my kids as well, their lives were in danger.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there any differentiation about policemen or would any policeman be killed?
MR NDLOVU: Any policeman who was rendered to be an enemy of the people, because they were working for the white system. On those bases there was no discrimination, should I say, of who it was. Unless of course, it is known that it is someone from outside and he is working for this side, but all cops were rendered to be people who are assisting to enforce the apartheid.
ADV DE JAGER: And should be eliminated?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: You said you went, the argument started about change.
MR NDLOVU: That's correct.
ADV DE JAGER: And what in fact was then, how did it develop, how did you come to accuse him of something else?
MR NDLOVU: It is the utterances, M'Lord, of Hendrik, that led to this being unveiled.
ADV DE JAGER: So the policeman walking out and being there, that didn't trigger off the thing, it was a later argument?
MR NDLOVU: We were, we were shocked by this but we really didn't question this until such time as he himself boasted and become over pompous that he knows our hide-outs, in the cars that we sleep in and our description, they know who are we. And that in itself provoked us to an extent that we should see that it really isn't just a matter that should be left hanging. We need to deal with this once and for all. So as to show others as well that informing on us, it is punishable by the sentences that are very severe.
ADV DE JAGER: But what was the sentence in this case, the severe sentence?
MR NDLOVU: Was to burn down the house that Hendrik grew in.
ADV DE JAGER: And was there a sitting of the people's court to come to that decision?
MR NDLOVU: No, the people's court had not sat, it was a decision that we take as leadership.
ADV DE JAGER: So without a court ...(intervention)
MR NDLOVU: And there are cases - excuse me?
ADV DE JAGER: Without a court sitting?
MR NDLOVU: Without the court sitting. There are instances, M'Lord, where there is no necessity of coming to a court of
that nature. We usually take initiatives as people who have been vested with power to deal with a situation like this, as they arise.
ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the café when you had this argument?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?
ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the café when you had this argument with Hendrik?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, there were several people, but I can't recall who were they.
ADV DE JAGER: Some of his family or his gang staying with him?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, his gang members were outside and the other members who usually work in the shop and those who would come to buy.
ADV DE JAGER: Were there any of the people sitting over there, present?
MR NDLOVU: No, M'Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: But you say opposite this place, so I presume, you know the people working there and you could give their names to us?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord?
ADV DE JAGER: You could give the names of the persons in the café, you were staying there, just opposite the street.
MR NDLOVU: Give names?
ADV DE JAGER: Ja.
MR NDLOVU: I don't understand the question.
ADV DE JAGER: Where - how far from the café did they live?
MR NDLOVU: I should say two to 300 metres.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Did you know the people working with him in the café?
MR NDLOVU: Yes. Not by names really, but by the virtue of being in the same location together, we know who works there, but I don't know their location, their place where they stay and what-have-you.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
MR CURRIN: If the Committee needs you to help them in any way in identifying any person who may be a witness, would you be quite willing to render your assistance?
MR NDLOVU: A witness?
MR CURRIN: If, for example, the Committee feels that there may be people who were present at the time, who may be of assistance to the Committee, would you be willing to assist in identifying people that could testify at this hearing?
MR NDLOVU: I am willing to.
MR CURRIN: If I understood your evidence correctly, about Hendrik, in the context of consumer boycotts, were you saying that Hendrik was a businessman? He did business.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, he did business.
MR CURRIN: So consumer boycotts were not in his interests?
MR NDLOVU: Not at all.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, can I get some clarification. Were you against Black business people conducting businesses in Black townships?
MR NDLOVU: No, that is not the case, but however, it should be noted that people who were bringing product, it is people that we were enforcing this consumer boycott on.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you were basically opposed to trucks coming into the location to make deliveries?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: To Black entrepreneurs who were conducting businesses in Black locations?
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Why was that? Where would they get things to sell otherwise?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, there had been strikes that were waged by workers in fighting for a living wage, that would ultimately give their families better living conditions, that would afford them luxury that our other counterparts were having. And they needed our support in so doing. By preventing the product to go and by workers putting tools down, that would eventually hit hard on the owner or the management thereof, of those companies, and they would have no option but to settle down and negotiate a dispute with the workers amicably.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, what is your position now?
MR BLACK: My position is that the name of Hendrik Masupa has arisen during the course of this evidence for the first time. I have in the short adjournment been in contact with Mr Masupa's employer, and every attempt is going to be made to get him to attend the hearing. I would like to first consult with Mr Masupa before putting questions to the applicant. And I will use, while waiting for Mr Masupa, I will also consult further with the victims.
JUDGE WILSON: Now I am speaking now to the victims. You are here because you are involved in what happened, and you have spent the morning listening to the evidence of the applicant. Is that correct? And I understand you have consulted with Mr Black. You will now have a further opportunity to discuss with Mr Black what questions should be put on your behalf and thereafter to listen to his
questions, and if you have any further questions you wish to put, you will be given the opportunity to do so after Mr Black has completed his questioning. Do you understand that? We now propose to adjourn. We are waiting the arrival of your relative, Hendrik Masupa, and we will adjourn till two o'clock, at the latest. If everything is ready earlier we may start earlier, not much earlier. Very well, we will now adjourn.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, are you ready to proceed?
MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman.
PHINEAS NDLOVU: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Ndlovu, to begin with, I just want to find out what school you attended and up until what standard did you attend that school? Could you ...
MR NDLOVU: It is Davey High School or senior secondary.
MR BLACK: Till what ...?
MR NDLOVU: I was at school up to my form 4, that is Std 9.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, is it possible to draw the microphone closer to yourself so that perhaps you can speak with ease without having to bend.
MR BLACK: As far as Mr Hendrik Masupa is concerned, how long did you know him for?
MR NDLOVU: I should say three to four years.
MR BLACK: Excuse me. Mr Chairman, may I just clear up, I just want to clear up something with the - Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will proceed. Now from where did you know Hendrik Masupa?
MR NDLOVU: In the shops in our street, that is Mocke Street.
MR BLACK: I can't hear what you said?
MR NDLOVU: In the shops where he usually is employed.
MR BLACK: Yes, and is it also a fact that you lived across the road from where the Masupa house was situated?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I stayed there.
MR BLACK: Right. And as far as the Masupa house is concerned, is it not so that it is an ordinary four-roomed house, which you find in the township?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR BLACK: There is nothing more extravagant or - I just want to, I am having a little difficulty here with a matter and I don't seem to have any assistance here.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. The house in which the Masupas lived and which you burnt down, is no different to any other of the township houses there, it's not more extravagant, it is no bigger. Is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR BLACK: And as far as the Masupas who lived in that house is concerned, and who were the victims and whose children and relatives were killed, they, I put it to you, lived an ordinary life-style, they were not much wealthier or poorer than the people living around them, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: From my assumption, that wouldn't be so, because they happened to be part of the mainstream of people who owned shops and shebeens around.
MR BLACK: Well, let me put it to you this way. Who owned the shopping complex, where this dispute arose?
MR NDLOVU: I take it that is Mr Masupa's relative....
MR BLACK: Sydney, it is the grandfather of say Hendrik Masupa. ...(tape ends)
MR BLACK: ... at the time that the house was burning, I will put it to you, and if necessary, evidence, we will lead evidence to that effect, were not any wealthier than any of the other people living around. They didn't own that shop and were not part of the recipients of any proceeds of that shop. So you base your assumption on the fact that because Mr - the elder Mr Masupa, the grandfather, owned the shop, therefore everybody was better off. Is that what you are saying?
MR NDLOVU: I happen to know that we usually take care of our family as the immediate and the others as well.
MR BLACK: Okay. We will come to that later. Did you also know that Hendrik Masupa regularly worked at the shopping complex?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR BLACK: He used to go to school and after school he used to work at that shopping complex.
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR BLACK: And did you know - okay, let's put it this way. During the course of these three years that you knew Mr Masupa, how did you get to know him? Was it, I mean, under what circumstances? Was it because you were living opposite their house or because you met him in the shop?
MR NDLOVU: Because I met him in the shop and that, that I should know of him it is because of the reports and the complaints that have been brought forward to us and the kind of attitude that it portrayed him and his cahoots when we usually conducted our operation clean-ups and thus preventing us from entering the shebeen above and getting rid of weapons that they were in possession of, our brothers who drank and afterwards.....
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I just want to clear up one aspect before - may I? Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, it is obvious that you will need time to consult with Mr Hendrik. Can't you direct your questions to what the victims would say and have a proper consultation with Hendrik and proceed on cross-examination, as far as his story is concerned, tomorrow? Unless you feel you know enough to continue with the cross-examination now.
MR BLACK: Yes, Sir. I can proceed with some of the cross-examination. The only difficulty is that Mr Masupa, Mr Hendrik Masupa wasn't present in court throughout and he was implicated and he keeps on, issues keep on coming up. But perhaps to finish off on this line and then I will proceed towards the house issue.
Mr Ndlovu, let me put it to you this way, that this sweeping statement of yours that Mr Hendrik Masupa had problems with the community or with your comrades, let us put it that way, by preventing them in the shops, from carrying weapons and removing weapons, he denies that and he will deny it under oath.
I will also put it to you that as far as your allegation made earlier, that on an occasion he was disciplined by the people's court, and lashes were administered to him, is also a lie and not true. According to Mr Hendrik Masupa.
MR NDLOVU: That he had a problem with us as comrades, I don't know why he is denying that and as of administering lashes, probably the time we had meted out many disciplinary measures and probably my memory is not serving me well, but in one form or another we did hand out a disciplinary measure to Mr Masupa, and that is why it was felt at that point in time that we need to do something that would bring his senses around.
JUDGE WILSON: So you now say you are not sure that you administered lashes to him. Is that what I am to understand?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, I am saying it is in my view that we had, but if in his view there was never anything of that
nature, then it must have meant that we did handle a case with Mr Masupa and a disciplinary measure was meted out, be it lashes or the other form of disciplinary matters, I think that is where I am having a problem.
MR BLACK: Yes.
MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't deny that as Mr Masupa is saying, that there were no lashes at that point in time. It could have been another form really.
MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Ndlovu, did Mr Masupa ever appear before the people's court in Russia?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, he did.
MR BLACK: Thanks, Mr Chairman. Those are some of the questions which I just want to hold, to stand down for a while, for further consultation.
I will put it to you that the reason why you went to burn the house where the Masupa household lives, is because of this dispute which occurred in the café, between your, the people who were with you and Mr Masupa, relating to the question of change. And I will demonstrate to you, and it will be alleged that you and your friends entered that café and caused trouble, you administered lashes, sjamboks and disturbing the customers, and you were told to leave. Did that happen?
MR NDLOVU: In my correct, in my memory, what I understand is that whilst the problem arose between Mr Masupa and one of my comrades, Mr Mahlangu, it came to my sense that I should try and bring Mr Mahlangu to line and yes, I remember now that I even took out a sjambok and showed Mr Mahlangu that ultimately if he causes trouble, he will be sjambokked, but upon Mr Masupa's insistence and utterances then it went out of hand and it developed into something that would not warrant me to give away my comrade.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now Mr Ndlovu, I am going to demonstrate to this Committee that what you are saying is you are being very economical on the truth, as it were, with the truth. But I will return to the disturbances at the shop and the allegations which you have made about Mr Masupa at a later stage.
What I want to ask of you, is were you after all these years of knowing Mr Masupa and that he worked there, that he actually slept at that shop? He used to sleep at the shop.
MR NDLOVU: I wasn't aware of that.
MR BLACK: Yes. Because he will testify that he used to sleep upstairs and his grandfather used to take him to school in the morning and he would then return to work in the shop. Now the burning down of the Masupa house, did that receive the ... (intervention).
ADV DE JAGER: ...Mr Black, do you deny this or is it the truth or don't you know?
MR NDLOVU: That he was sleeping in the shop?
ADV DE JAGER: Ja.
MR NDLOVU: No, I didn't carry knowledge of that.
ADV DE JAGER: Now you went to attack the place where his head rests, that is where he sleeps. Isn't that so? That's how I understood you.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's how I and my comrades, we believed that's where he sleeps.
ADV DE JAGER: But you didn't know where he is sleeping. So you don't know whether he slept in the shop?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, I should point to you that two of my comrades were in the same street with Mr Masupa, and I was in the next street and the others were in the street following me. So that knowledge really came through my
comrades as such. So I wouldn't know that at the time he was no longer sleeping at home.
JUDGE WILSON: I thought you said in your evidence, when I asked you some questions, that Hendrik did not live there? That he was 23 to 26 years of age and did not live in that house. That's what you told me.
MR NDLOVU: I doubt it, M'Lord. You asked me as to whether Hendrik was present then and I answered that no, we had left him there in the shop.
JUDGE WILSON: No, that is not what I asked you. I asked you his age and you said his age. I then asked you if he lived there. You said Hendrik did not live there, it was his father's house, his family lived there. You didn't say anything about leaving him at the shop.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I remember, M'Lord, I answered to the effect that there had been a culture that had been created amongst us as comrades, that even if it meant that an informer or a police wife or his kids, for that matter, were present at the time, then whatever happened then, would be looked in in a broader context, that it was the elimination of the bad. Because it is either you are with us or you are not with us. That's the answer I must have given you, M'Lord.
JUDGE WILSON: It was not.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think we may have to look at the - or listen to the recording. My understanding was certainly that he always said that Hendrik slept at the house of his grandfather. That is as far as he knew, that was where Hendrik slept and that was his evidence throughout, according to my recollection and the notes that I have got.
JUDGE WILSON: But what he went on to say, Mr Currin, which
you may remember, is where he grew up, that was his place. That is why we took this decision, that he regarded the place where his head rested as the place where he had grown up. Carry on.
MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now I have now only had the opportunity of looking at the court record, very briefly, but is it correct that one of your co-accused at the hearing was Mr Lazarus Motsamai?
MR NDLOVU: Lazarus Motsamai, that's correct.
MR BLACK: Right. Was he one of the group of the people who went to help burn down the Masupa house?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's correct.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now Lazarus Motsamai is a friend of Hendrik Masupa. Do you know that?
MR NDLOVU: That's correct.
MR BLACK: And Hendrik would say, will testify, if necessary, that on a number of occasions, more than one occasion, Lazarus Motsamai actually slept at the shop in the complex where Hendrik slept and he knew that Hendrik slept at that shopping complex.
MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't know.
MR BLACK: Okay. I just want to proceed to the burning of the house. Your actions in burning down the house of the Masupas, was those actions approved of by the comrades?
MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't understand that actions ...?
MR BLACK: Your actions which you carried out that night, in going and burning down the house of the Masupas, was that approved of by the comrades? Was that within their policy, did they approve of it in that area?
MR NDLOVU: It was not just a matter of approving. It was a culture that has been with us comrades that the severest
punishment that could be meted out to people who were not co-operative or who were collaborators, stooges and informers, et cetera, would be either to burn the house or to necklace that person in particular.
MR BLACK: The question is again: your actions of that evening or that night, were they approved of by the comrades or by any organisation, in burning down that house?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, they were approved.
MR BLACK: Okay. Well, then I would like you to explain why is it then that the comrades, the true comrades of that area, assisted the police in effecting the arrests of the parties who participated in the burning of that house?
MR NDLOVU: I should say that as indicated before, that in Russia we were in leadership and what happened thereof, this gave way to this collaboration of gangsters who had long been suppressed, because they wouldn't do their function, Masupa, Hendrik and his friends, and the security branch. They in fact intimidated some of our comrades to partake in effecting arrests on fellow comrades. That was how this happened. They were manipulated into believing what was done was something that was out of the context of their comradely duties and furthermore, that being - some of them being minors as it is indicated with the people that I was arrested with, and they were therefore easily intimidated by this conspiracy or ...(indistinct) for that matter.
MR BLACK: Well, let me tell you what happened, according to my instructions. After the house had been burnt down, or burnt rather, and the comrades arrived at the house, known comrades in that area arrived at the house, together with Mr - the accused number 6, Eliasa Ratane. Do you know about that?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I know Mr Eliasa Ratane.
MR BLACK: Yes. But do you know that the comrades arrived there, had arrested and caught this man and brought him to the Masupa house?
MR NDLOVU: Some comrades who were minors at the time yes, they were bullied into partaking in that arrest, intimidated by the police and the gangsters that were involved at the time, who had to benefit everything by us being arrested.
MR BLACK: Are you saying therefore that those comrades who brought one of your co-accused to the house and disapproved of it, of what had taken place, are you saying those people were either not true comrades or that they were intimidated or collaborators with the police? Is that what you are saying?
MR NDLOVU: They were intimidated, yes, that's correct.
JUDGE WILSON: What time did they bring this person to the house, Mr Black, do you know?
MR BLACK: At about two o'clock in the afternoon, the next day, Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, were the police present when Ratane was brought to the house by the comrades?
MR BLACK: No, Mr Chairman. What happened was the comrades had heard about this. I will go into further consultations in detail and get names, if necessary. They sought out these people who they could find and they brought accused number 6 in the original trial, to the house. The police were not present. And they wanted to leave the Mr Ratane there under some security, and one of the comrades said well, let us rather call the police, and they summoned the police to the house. That is what I gather, what I can clarify. But what I am getting at, do you know Aubrey,
a comrade by the name of Aubrey?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I know comrade Aubrey.
MR BLACK: Yes. Is he also intimidated or a sell-out?
MR NDLOVU: In fact, comrade Aubrey was corrupt.
MR BLACK: Corrupt?
MR NDLOVU: There had been a power struggle within the ranks of comrades and comrade Aubrey saw this as an opportunity to seize power and I think he used it to the best of his ability.
MR BLACK: Saw what to seize power?
MR NDLOVU: Seize power that he be at the helm of the leadership of the liberated zone Russia.
MR BLACK: But what did he use to seize power?
MR NDLOVU: Every opportunity that arose like this one, he would want to make the most of it.
MR BLACK: In what way?
MR NDLOVU: That he should influence comrades badly, he should create division.
MR BLACK: So it was an internal power struggle?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, there was a power struggle. It did give a bit of resistance in this direction ...(intervention)
MR BLACK: So he wasn't collaborating or intimidated by the police?
MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated, that he is corrupt. He saw this as an opportunity to climb the ladder of leadership.
MR BLACK: Corrupt in what sense? That is what I am trying to get at. You are saying ... (intervention).
MR NDLOVU: Corrupt in a sense that he created division amongst comrades.
MR BLACK: Yes.
MR NDLOVU: He wanted to be at the helm of of the leadership of comrades, and the problem is, with people like comrade Aubrey, they are the people who want to stand out there and give instructions and they cannot go down and toil with the masses. Firstly, you wouldn't get him in operation clean-ups, he wouldn't involve himself in that. When it was time to deal with gangsters, members that you know you are putting your life at risk in dealing with, he wouldn't put his life in danger. But he was the kind of leadership that would want to stand out there, issue instruction, at the end of the day and go and sleep in the comfort of his home.
MR BLACK: Okay.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he in fact seize the leadership?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord, I gather immediately after police had intimidated the other minors, he was at the forefront of this so-called comrades who had been involved in this manhunt or whatever.
JUDGE WILSON: But did he remain as the leader of the comrades in that area?
MR NDLOVU: M'Lord, it didn't take long before things went to where they were supposed to. It took only three months. In September, right after we had spent some time in trial, the whole thing went back and there were no longer comrades but it was now a gangster called Ninjas. So apparently he shot himself in the legs, because the whole thing now backfired against him, and there was no longer a comradeship for that matter.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, who was the leader of the comrades in your area, prior to the 2nd of July?
MR NDLOVU: Myself, Absalom Kubela, Patrick Mashang and Elias Ratane.
MR BLACK: May I continue? Thanks. So Elias Ratane was one of the leaders?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
MR BLACK: And you are aware of the fact that he was caught and handed over to the police by comrades?
MR NDLOVU: All I am aware of is that he was arrested by a combination of police and those gang members and yes, some comrades.
MR BLACK: You keep on saying gang members. What gang members are you talking about?
MR NDLOVU: There was a gang member, there was a gangster, in fact, that was aligned with the situation in the tavern above, where Hendrik used, his buddies in fact, who used to come to him for liquor and who would defend him in many ways, who would be involved rather in quelling that we should enforce a consumer boycott. There was this gangster called Bambos Splash.
MR BLACK: Who?
MR NDLOVU: Bambos Splash.
MR BLACK: Okay. I will make enquiries about that. To get to the Masupa household. I put it to you that you forced a person to drive you to a garage or wherever, to collect petrol and to fill a five litre can of petrol. Is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Forced, I don't believe. We requested someone to ferry us to the fuel station.
MR BLACK: But there are different ways of requesting one. Did he have a choice?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, he had a choice.
MR BLACK: Okay. It is a Mr Sibisi.
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And was he present when the burning took place?
MR NDLOVU: No, he was not.
MR BLACK: No. And you also, as far as the burning is concerned, I will put it to you, the evidence is - well, let's just paint a picture. This is a four-bedroomed house with a door entrance to the kitchen and a door to one of the ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: I think my learned friend means a four-roomed house.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, he said before an ordinary four-roomed house. It has now become a four-bedroomed house.
MR BLACK: No, it is a four-roomed house. There is a door to the kitchen and there's an entrance door, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
MR BLACK: The meter box which is referred to, that is referred to as a meter box, that controls the lights inside the house, is situated outside the house, is that so?
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Yes. The evidence of one of the victims will be to the effect that they were all gathered, the parties inside were gathered watching TV, the lights suddenly went off, darkness. There was the door was opened and the name Manta was called out. Let's stop there.
MR NDLOVU: We approached the house and we knocked and a voice from inside said come in and we went in.
JUDGE WILSON: Were the lights on?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord, the lights were on because I could see that someone was making tea. I just can't recall who was it, who was making tea.
ADV DE JAGER: And the TV?
MR NDLOVU: We entered through the kitchen. I wouldn't see whether the TV was on in that room or whatever, living room.
MR BLACK: If I may just complete that. Give a clearer picture. The parties were sitting watching television, the lights went off and then somebody came in and then the lights went on again, when people had entered the house.
MR NDLOVU: I don't understand the question.
MR BLACK: In other words, the evidence will be of the victims that they were sitting there watching television, when suddenly their lights went off, the whole house's lights. In other words the main switch outside the house must have gone off. People entered, the lights went on. Then there was some, a voice called out "Manta".
MR NDLOVU: When we walked in the house was, there was light inside the house. I wouldn't know if the lights did fall before we gained entrance ...
MR BROWN: Mr Chairman could I just indicate that there was plenty of evidence at the trial about what happened, how they got access to the house, the Judge actually found that there was a knock on the door, somebody said who is there and they said comrades. That was a finding, but be that as it may, there is exhausted evidence on the record of the trial as to how they got in and what happened when they were in the house.
And broadly speaking, we haven't contested that. Now if we are going into a retrial about the detail of how they got into the house and what happened when they were in the house, then I think we're obviously going to have to prepare ourselves in a different way.
But broadly speaking we haven't contested the generality of that evidence and of the court record. The only aspect which we've contested is the question of the motive.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you call the name Mantha.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Who was Mantha?
MR NDLOVU: It was Hendrik's sister.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you call the name, or who called the name?
MR NDLOVU: Mashavu called the name.
ADV DE JAGER: Did Mantha respond?
MR NDLOVU: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Was she there?
MR NDLOVU: Later it appeared, she was.
ADV DE JAGER: Was she injured or killed in the event?
MR NDLOVU: She died in the event.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, with regard to your objection, is the version the accused, the applicant is giving us, the version that appears in the record?
MR CURRIN: Broadly, with regard to their access to the house and what happened in the house, broadly speaking, it is the same version that is in the record, the trial, the only aspect which we have really, I suppose one can say, put in dispute, is the way in which the motive and the participation of the comrades, the conflict which they had with Hendrik was totally depoliticized.
Outside of that, we are really not contesting the detail of the evidence that was submitted at the trial.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, does Mr Black have possession of the record you are referring to?
MR CURRIN: He does have the record and if he were to look at the judgement, the very first page the Judge there deals with how they got access to the house and what happened and it is broadly speaking the evidence that has been given now, but clearly if one is going to go into detail and ask very specific questions, I am sure that there is going to be a slightly different version and there, because we are talking about something that happened a long time ago.
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to go into any detail, unnecessary detail. I disagree, I haven't - I have read the evidence and I have consulted with the victims, that evidence I have read. I disagree with what my learned friend says as to broadly speaking, as to how they entered the house and what happened in the house conforms with the evidence given by the applicant. I must disagree.
I can highlight the issues which I wish to highlight because I intend Mr Masupa is going to request that he give evidence and I don't want, I wouldn't, I assume my learned friend would also be understanding in that regard and not subject him to unnecessary cross-examination.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, it is common cause they have entered the house, it is common cause that they created the fire or the burning. What would be relevant is what was said by the comrades and what they accused the people inside of, because that is relevant as far as the motive is concerned, so could we see whether we could get any information on that basis?
MR BLACK: Thank you. I was getting to that. As far as I just want to place in dispute the evidence given by the applicant, as far as the gaining of entry into the house. What I did omit and what I think is quite an important Mr Masupa confirms it with me, that there was a knock, people said who is there and they said comrades, which I think is relevant.
And then what happened inside the house, Mantha's name was called, she is in fact Christina Masupa, is she not? Is that so?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's right.
MR BLACK: Yes. Now Christina is the brother of Godfrey Masupa.
JUDGE WILSON: ; Christina is the brother of Godfrey?
MR BLACK: I mean Christina is the sister to Godfrey Masupa, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Who is Godfrey, Mr Black? Who is Godfrey Masupa?
MR BLACK: Godfrey Masupa is one of the victims, that was inside the house. And her mother is Elinale Masupa, is that correct? Christina's mother?
MR NDLOVU: I gather so.
MR BLACK: And Christina was also active in politics at school, is that not so?
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
MR BLACK: She was in fact regarded as a comrade?
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
MR BLACK: I put it to you that you entered the house, there was none of this discussions which you've testified about which took place between you and the occupants of the house, in other words by that I mean this evidence which you've given like trying to persuade them to leave the house, explaining what you were going to do as you've given evidence. No such discussions took place or attempts were made by you.
MR NDLOVU: It did take place and as a result of that, as I've testified that during that process, I had to extinguish matchsticks that were being thrown to the floor so as to burn the house, not foreseeing that as a result of that people could die and people need to be evacuated first.
MR BLACK: Did you make this clear at the trial?
MR NDLOVU: Come again?
MR BLACK: Did you testify to that effect at the trial, can you remember that you telling the court?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, it is in my trial record that I extinguished match sticks.
MR BLACK: And that you persuaded, tried to persuade the people to get out?
MR NDLOVU: I think it is all there in the trial record.
MR BLACK: Well, I will have to have a closer look at that. ADV DE JAGER: Can't copies of this trial record be prepared before we adjourn so that we could have a look at it tonight, please?
MR BLACK: I will speak to the logistics people in Johannesburg and I hope we will be able to. It is in fact, it consists of the evidence, the evidence section consists of two volumes.
JUDGE WILSON: How long, how many pages?
MR BLACK: It is 165, yes and I, but I think the judgement would be, I haven't had an opportunity of reading the judgement. If we may proceed, thanks.
I put it to you that Mr Masupa, Godfrey Masupa who was inside the house will deny that there was this discussion as you say, or attempts made to evacuate the house.
MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before, there were two people in the kitchen and I spoke to them, informing them of our intensions and whilst I was speaking to them, as I have indicated that it is in the record that I had to deal with the anger of my comrade, and seeing that they didn't foresee that as an end result of their actions at the time, we would all have been dead right inside.
ADV DE JAGER: Who were the two people in the kitchen?
MR NDLOVU: I cannot recall, but it was people of the opposite gender, females, I gather ...
ADV DE JAGER: Was Mantha there, Christina, you knew her, she was a comrade?
MR NDLOVU: Come again sir.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you know Christina, she was a comrade?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, but it wasn't her in the kitchen.
ADV DE JAGER: Now, Godfrey, do you know him?
MR NDLOVU: Godfrey, yes I know him.
ADV DE JAGER: Was he in the kitchen?
MR NDLOVU: No, he wasn't in the kitchen.
ADV DE JAGER: Any other people sitting there, were they in the kitchen?
MR NDLOVU: It was elderly people what I could recall.
ADV DE JAGER: They are all elderly sitting over there, were they in the kitchen or not, one of them or two of them? You said that there were two people in the kitchen?
MR NDLOVU: If my memory still serve me well, it could well be my mother with the white, but I am not certain if it is her.
JUDGE WILSON: The white headrest you mean?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, but I am not certain of that. It could well be her, because it was elderly people who was in the kitchen at the time.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you ask Hendrik.
MR BLACK: Yes, that - I've ascertained who was in the kitchen.
JUDGE WILSON: Who is the person sitting there with the white headrest?
MR BLACK: Yes, I am about to. She was one of the people in the kitchen and her name is Elinale Masupa, and she was in fact - that is her house.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know that it is her house?
MR NDLOVU: I know.
MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Well, let me put it to you Mr Ndlovu, Mrs Masupa that is Elinale, was in the kitchen the owner of the house. You called Mantha's name out, because you knew her and she came to the kitchen. Is that not so?
MR NDLOVU: No, not according to my recollection of what happened on that night.
MR BLACK: Well, the evidence she came to the kitchen, as she came to the kitchen, she saw fuel and she ran back to tell the other people in the house.
MR NDLOVU: As I've said, I had a very difficult situation to deal with. As I have indicated at one hand I would have to extinguish sticks of match fire. Even if she had approached or accosted the kitchen, I would have noticed her at that time.
MR BLACK: Okay, I will clear it up for your sake, I will speak to her.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, just - I am sorry to interpose Mr Black, why did you not ask for Mantha in order to advise her to persuade her people to leave the house?
MR NDLOVU: As she had been called earlier and I was of the opinion that she was going to help in that process, but probably what took me off, it is seeing those kind of situations that we were in already. I had fuel over me and we were all side that place and we were all inside that place and as a result the stove had made, I think it created a state of panic in them and whilst I was dealing with the situation of trying to extinguish those match sticks that had been lit in this very dangerous situation. It probably must have slipped my mind of all the kind of pressures in that situation that I found myself at the time.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you fellows all drunk?
MR NDLOVU: No Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: You had gone to the house to persuade the people, as I understand it, to leave the house and you were then going to burn it down.
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Yet, as soon as you get into the house, while you were trying to talk to people, they start throwing matches around?
MR NDLOVU: And petrol. And petrol.
JUDGE WILSON: And petrol, they throw petrol all over the floor and then start throwing matches all around.
MR NDLOVU: My Lord, the way we were so angry, it is to a degree that we would have in the process even killed ourselves as I could recollect as to how the events of the day happened, as indicated in the trial record. At one stage I had to deal with the situation and on the other one would be doing that realising of course there is fuel on the floor and notwithstanding the fact that the door behind, its door lock had broken and we are locked inside, all of us.
JUDGE WILSON: That is what I can't understand you see Mr
Ndlovu, any normal, sober person going to a house, pouring petrol over the floor before they have made arrangements to evacuate the house and then throwing matches into the petrol.
MR NDLOVU: As I was busy doing that, my Lord, as I was talking to the occupants, it so happened that, it is then that I realised I that fuel had already been poured and I was in that.
JUDGE WILSON: ; Yes, and your colleagues had poured fuel onto your leg too. Were they drunk?
MR NDLOVU: No, my Lord.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, why did they behave in this way? Can you give any rational explanation?
MR NDLOVU: I think my Lord, a rational explanation of that would be that they felt that it had come to the time
that people who behaved like Hendrik, should see that they might demean us and do whatever they feel like doing, but at the end, we will definitely punish them.
JUDGE WILSON: Hendrik was not there, there were two elderly women in the kitchen with you and your friends. They were the people you were going to punish by burning it while they were standing there, weren't they?
MR NDLOVU: My Lord, it is true that Hendrik wasn't there and the objective that we sought to achieve was to burn down the house. However...
JUDGE WILSON: Yes. So why did your friends start throwing matches around before you had arranged for these older people to leave the house?
MR NDLOVU: The only logical explanation I could give my Lord is that I think the kind of offence that Mr Masupa had committed and the kind of anger that they, the state of
anger in which they were in, made them to behave rather irrationally because even our lives as well, were in danger at the moment in time.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they go there in fact to kill these people?
MR NDLOVU: No, my Lord, we had no such intentions.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, had you discussed with your comrades that you would try and get the people out of the house before you set fire on it?
MR NDLOVU: Honestly speaking, what we agreed upon is that we are going to burn down the house. That was our intention, we did not foresee that there would be an end result that would lead to people's death.
JUDGE WILSON: You were, these people were your neighbours
Mr Ndlovu, you told us. They lived across the road from you. You knew there were several people in the house, did you never think of them, their safety?
MR NDLOVU: My Lord, as I have indicated, the first primary responsibility that I sought to achieve at the moment in time, was to get them evacuated, but unfortunately my Lord, I don't know what happened to the reasoning capacity of my minor comrades, or fellow comrades at the point in time, that it lead to an extent that at that point in time, I had to act swiftly and try and extinguish those sticks that were being thrown into the fuel to ignite and set fire on the house.
MS KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Ndlovu, would it be fair to therefore assume that your comrades intended to have the occupants of the house burn down to death? You as the leader had not given specific instructions that no live was
to be lost, that only the house was to be burnt down.
MR NDLOVU: I gathered, when we said that the house was to be burnt down, it was meant, it meant the house as in the property and human life was something that we valued as well and we wouldn't want people to lose their lives. That is why we even resorted in operation clean ups to try and rid our community of weapons that they used to maim and kill one another, week after week as a result ...
JUDGE WILSON: I am getting a little tired of your political speeches Mr Ndlovu. We are interested in your actions that evening and what you did and why you did this that evening. Do you understand?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, my Lord.
JUDGE WILSON: Who bought the petrol?
MR NDLOVU: We bought the petrol.
JUDGE WILSON: Who paid for it?
MR NDLOVU: The money was in possession of comrade Gobela.
JUDGE WILSON: He paid for it?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, he paid for it.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, who lit the match stick which resulted in this tragic event?
MR NDLOVU: It is Mahlanga.
MS KHAMPEPE: Where is Mr Mahlanga presently?
MR NDLOVU: He has since been granted amnesty in 1992, he is outside.
MR BLACK: While we are in the kitchen at this preparatory state, I take my learned friend's point, it is not cross-examination, but you have, you see, I put it to you that you in your evidence, let me put it this way, there was this elderly lady in the kitchen. Mantha came to the kitchen
because she was called there, her name was called.
She saw the fuel scattered on the floor, she screamed and ran back into the house to warn the people and then the fire went up, then the fire started.
MR NDLOVU: The fire started after a while, after having had to deal with those sticks of matches that were lit and as to that Mantha was called, yes, that is correct, she was called and I had already indicated to the elderly people who were in the kitchen, that you need to go out, evacuate because we are going, we came, we have come here to burn down this house.
Hendrik has ultimately committed a crime to us as comrades that is punishable by this severe punishment that we need to meet out. As I was busy relating to the elderly people, I heard a sound, obviously when you light a match it
makes a sound, and upon that I turned to find that the stick was burning.
I extinguished it and informed my comrades, no, we need to take people out first and as I have indicated the stove was hot, probably it was because it is winter months and stoves usually are hot at the time and the heat was making the atmosphere in the kitchen unbearable because it was kind of making the petrol to foam so to speak, to smell all over the kitchen.
And while I was doing that, probably it is then that Christina approached the kitchen, I wouldn't say.
MR BLACK: One of the elderly people who was in the kitchen is present here and is hearing your evidence. And I will consult further with her about what you are saying, but at the short time at my disposal and having looked through the record, your evidence in the record very briefly, and I may
well have missed this, but I certainly don't see anything in your evidence that was given earlier on at the trial that you had a discussion with the persons in the kitchen and that you made attempts to have them evacuated.
I don't find it anywhere on this record at this stage. I will examine it more closely tonight, if I am given that opportunity. Instead what I find is a very brief reason of as to how you got burnt, and why the fire went up. All I have, all that I can manage to trace is that you said that Mr Mahlangu struck the match at an inappropriate time and that is how you got trapped in the house.
MR NDLOVU: That is how all of us got trapped in the house, we were all trapped.
MR BLACK: My instructions from the victims is that your comrades actually closed that kitchen door, pulled it closed
behind them when they went out when the fire, while the house was on fire and that is how you got trapped. You got left behind unfortunately.
MR NDLOVU: No.
MR BLACK: Okay.
MR NDLOVU: When comrade Maqlanga struck the match, we were all inside. The problem with the door, as I indicated, it had broken so this kind of door that you have a piece of....
MR BLACK: A bolt?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, a lever that could use to open the door and it had broken in a very inappropriate way that you need to put your finger and to open it, you have to squeeze hard and that goes with pain, but ...
ADV DE JAGER: Did you leave the house through the same door where you entered the house?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, we left the house in the very same door.
ADV DE JAGER: And you've now demonstrated that this door had a latch?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And you are using the sort of pin attached to the straight part to open and close it?
MR NDLOVU: I used my finger, because ...
ADV DE JAGER: ; Yes, the ordinary one. It is like a pin with a small ...
MR NDLOVU: Yes, with something inside.
ADV DE JAGER: Now, how did you close it if it hadn't had the small pin?
MR NDLOVU: Close?
ADV DE JAGER: How did you lock the latch?
MR NDLOVU: Close as we get in?
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, after you got in, somebody closed it and locked it?
MR NDLOVU: It - to my mind, I was in front, but I think he just pushed it, because it doesn't necessarily mean you have to hold the handle to close it. It is the kind of doors that whenever you push it, it has a smaller hole and when it moves here, it would go to the end where the pin must go in.
ADV DE JAGER: No, then I have misunderstood the mechanism of the whole thing. But it is not that important.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you leave the house in the company of your companions or did they go out first?
MR NDLOVU: I was the first to get out my Lord.
MR BLACK: Mr Ndlovu, the owner, the lady of the house is present, as I've said and she will explain fully to the court about this issue of the doors. That it is denied - I
am just putting it to you now in fairness - she denies that that door handle was defective or as you have described to the court. It was in working order, the doors were closed and pulled closed after you comrades had run out and you were unfortunately trapped.
MR NDLOVU: No, that is not the case and I had to squeeze my finger very tight to open up ... (tape ends)
MR BLACK: ... clarify that issue more and come back to you on that. But let me put it to you, going back slightly again, perhaps I can put it to you tomorrow, but at this stage, after the incident which took place and I will elaborate on this incident tomorrow after Mr Hendrik Masupa has given more detailed instructions and had the opportunity of reading your evidence, after that incident at the shopping complex, you - your group resolved to go and burn
down the Masupa house, is that correct?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is correct.
MR BLACK: The next scenario is that your group go and approach a Mr Sibisi, according to you you made a request to him that he take you to go and fetch petrol.
MR NDLOVU: That is correct.
MR BLACK: You then went and fetched petrol, you paid for it - a five litre plastic can of petrol. And then drove back to Mr Masupa's house, is that so? On your way back to the house, you actually have to pass the shopping complex where Mr Hendrik Masupa works and where the incident, altercation took place, is that not so?
MR NDLOVU: No, that is not so.
MR BLACK: Okay. How long did ...
ADV DE JAGER: Is that not so, didn't you pass the shop again?
MR NDLOVU: After having got fuel, no.
MR BLACK: Then how long did this take you to go and get a plastic can, then to go and find the person with the car and then to take you to buy the fuel?
MR NDLOVU: It could be plus minus 10 minutes.
MR BLACK: 10 Minutes? Okay. Now, I've broadly put it to you that it will be denied that you had discussions with the inmates of the house or attempted to get them evacuated, okay. After this burning of the house, what happened then?
MR NDLOVU: I ran out to (indistinct) the place, because I was in flames as well and those who had not suffered burn injuries, helped me extinguish the fire on me and I had suffered burn wounds quite considerably on my legs. And they were starting to stiffen up. We went back to Mr Sibisi in the car and he drove to his home and from there we knew
that the Security Branch was on our trial now.
We dispersed and agreed to run away from the Security Branch.
MR BLACK: Yes, and you told Mr Sibisi against his will, to take you to, or you requested him, if you want to even use that word, to take you to Lydenburg?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
MR BLACK: Now, ...
ADV DE JAGER: Did he agree or didn't he agree to take you to Lydenburg?
MR NDLOVU: He agreed, my Lord.
INTERPRETER: (The speaker's mike is not on)
ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact go to Lydenburg?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I did go to Lydenburg.
ADV DE JAGER: When did you go to Lydenburg?
MR NDLOVU: A day after the incident.
ADV DE JAGER: But Lydenburg is about 300 kilometres from Daveyton?
MR NDLOVU: I wouldn't know, but I presume so my Lord, it is far away.
ADV DE JAGER: When did you come to the hospital where the other people were?
MR NDLOVU: After my arrest my Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you treated at Lydenburg?
MR NDLOVU: No, I wasn't treated my Lord, I couldn't do that because upon reaching us the destination, the news had spread like a, I don't know and it was very, it was a situation whereby I couldn't trust any doctor for that matter to help me because he might have as well had me apprehended to the police for that matter.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you the only one who went to Lydenburg
or did your co-assailants ...
MR NDLOVU: We were three.
MS KHAMPEPE: And who was with you?
MR NDLOVU: It was Elias Ratone and Absalom Gobela. No my Lord, I am making an error, it was not Elias Ratone it was myself and Lazarus Matsomaye and Absalom Gobela.
ADV DE JAGER: Was arrested by your fellow comrades?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It was who - Absalom Gobela and who?
MR NDLOVU: And Lazarus Matsomai.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, were you aware at that stage that Mr Ratone had been taken to the house by the comrades?
MR NDLOVU: No, I wasn't aware.
ADV DE JAGER: When did you leave for Lydenburg, what time? Still during the night or when?
MR NDLOVU: My Lord?
ADV DE JAGER: Just after the burning of the house, still during the night or when?
MR NDLOVU: We stayed the night and apparently we left in the morning if my memory still serves me well. Because I remember I couldn't sleep, so I asked for some Aspirins due to the injuries that I had and I couldn't move on that said day.
ADV DE JAGER: Where were you sleeping, at your house?
MR NDLOVU: No, in a hideout my Lord.
ADV DE JAGER: In the veld?
MR NDLOVU: No, in another section.
JUDGE WILSON: Where, in whose house?
MR NDLOVU: In one of our friends', in one of people who were comrade friendly I should say so we regarded him as a friend, he gave us ...
JUDGE WILSON: Well, who was it?
MR NDLOVU: I can't recall his name, my Lord, all I know is that it is in the - it is next to Madona, it is a section that is just above our section.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you often use this house?
MR NDLOVU: Pardon?
ADV DE JAGER: This hideout, did you often use this hideout?
MR NDLOVU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And you knew the owner?
MR NDLOVU: How did I know the owner?
ADV DE JAGER: Well, did you know him?
MR NDLOVU: Yes, we knew him.
ADV DE JAGER: And now all of a sudden you've forgotten his name?
MR NDLOVU: My Lord, it is a long time ago.
ADV DE JAGER: No.
MR NDLOVU: I can remember the house and the place where it is, but the name really I would be lieing if I say I recall it. I am trying to jog down my memory.
ADV DE JAGER: Isn't it perhaps that you don't want to tell us the name because you wouldn't inform on him?
MR NDLOVU: No my Lord, there is nothing like informing in this present state.
MR BLACK: While we were on that issue about Lydenburg, I put it to you that when you approached Mr Sibisi for his car, the use of his car, that you actually threatened him. Your group, you said to him, look if you don't take, if you don't let us take that car, or you don't take us in that car, we will take it ourselves to Lydenburg.
MR NDLOVU: That is an incorrect statement, because at that point in time no one of us knew how to drive. So I
wouldn't know how would we take a car then.
MR BLACK: You see, again just skimming through the - I want to clear all that up too about taking cars - but skimming through the record, evidence Mr Sibisi - he testified to that effect. Do you remember him saying that in court that he was approached and he said look I can't take you. He used the word here as "kęrels", I can't take you guys up to Lydenburg, the car is not working.
MR NDLOVU: Yes, I remember. Yes, I do remember him denying that in court.
MR BLACK: I beg your pardon?
MR NDLOVU: Yes,I do remember him denying that in court.
MR BLACK: Yes, but this is what he said.
MR CURRIN: Whether they threatened the driver to take them to Lydenburg or not, I mean is that material and I would ask my learned friend to indicate how it is material
to the application, this is becoming sounding more and more like a new trial. As it relevant to the application, I ask that question.
ADV DE JAGER: We could believe your client, the applicant, that there was a political motive and that in general his credibility.
MR CURRIN: I fail to understand that, but if that is the reason, then I must ...
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, I have difficulty in understanding how you can say you fail to understand that your client's credibility is relevant to the proceedings.
MR CURRIN: No, what I am failing to understand, I understand that his credibility is relevant, what I am failing to understand is how, whether or not the person was threatened to take them to Lydenburg has an impact on his
credibility.
JUDGE WILSON: If this was a gang of young thugs going around threatening people forcing them to do it, it creates a very different picture than a political group doing something they thought they were entitled to.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, comrades spent many, many hours of many days threatening people to take them to places in their motor cars, it was common practice of comrades and if necessary I will lead evidence to that effect. Comrades did that kind of things.
ADV DE JAGER: But he is denying that they threatened him. And if Mr Sibisi would come and say I've been threatened, who should we believe?
MR CURRIN: I understand that as well and that would relate to every aspect of his evidence, so all I am saying is if we are going to go and test his evidence in that way,
it could be ongoing and I am just wondering whether it is relevant, that is all.
JUDGE WILSON: Carry on Mr Black.
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, just for the benefit of my learned friend. As I have indicated form the beginning, I will indicate to the Committee that in the community in which Mr Ndlovu lived, the way he behaved, the behaviour leading up to the burning, the behaviour subsequent, the threatening of people, the wielding of sjamboks would certainly not conduct for - it is the conduct of a thug, really, or criminals.
And that is what I am putting to you Mr Ndlovu, that you did threaten Mr Sibisi to take you up to Lydenburg, he didn't voluntarily ...
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, I just want to know are you saying
that the comrades would not threaten nor sjambok people in order to persuade them to do what they wanted?
MR BLACK: No, that is not what I am saying Mr Chairman. What I am saying this particular applicant and their particular behaviour in this situation, was essentially criminal in its activity and not as political as it has been portrayed.
I don't, I have no intention of cross-examining on the minute here of what took place. I just want to put it to you Mr Ndlovu, that the - you threatened Mr Sibisi to take you up to Lydenburg, he didn't do so voluntarily.
MR NDLOVU: As I have indicated before to you Sir, that I am aware that it is in the record that he said so, but to my understanding no one at the time would associate with you when you were under such immense pressure. So I took it, Mr Sibisi has a responsibility as well, he might have been a father of kids and has a family at the time, so he wouldn't
want to find himself being an accomplice to whatever acts that we performed.
So I take it he had every reason to make you believe he was forced. In fact Mr Sibisi was requested to help us.
MR BLACK: All right. I just, because that wasn't sort of challenged when Mr Sibisi said he was threatened and if you take the car, if you don't take the car, we will take it and under that threat he took you people to, that's what he said. He used the word "dreigement", but okay, be that as it may.
JUDGE WILSON: Well before you go on. As you know we have not had an opportunity of reading the record, we are relying so far on what you have put. You are challenging as I understand, only that Sibisi was threatened to take
them to Lydenburg, not that he was threatened on the previous evening and as I understand the evidence which I - it doesn't seem to have been challenged, I may have misunderstood, they approached Sibisi, asked him to take them to the garage which he did, he then brought them back to the house in question and apparently waited outside while they went in and did what they did and then took them home, is that the position?
MR BLACK: ; No, I've also had a very short, brief look at the record, but I don't understand that to be the position as far as the initial transportation is concerned. I think after dropping Mr Ndlovu and his friends at the house, Mr Sibisi went, left.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I am worried that we are putting things to a witness and we don't know whether in fact what is the true position as far as the record is concerned. I think you better study the record and make sure that what we are putting, or what you are suggesting, is in fact what stands in the record. We've got sympathy with you of having this record of over 100 or 200 pages in total, I don't know, and receiving it only during lunch time and that was the only opportunity you had to read it.
But I think we will really be more productive if we would continue after you have really studied it and it is unfortunate because we won't have the opportunity to have a copy of the record, presumably before we are leaving tonight.
MR BLACK: I agree with the Commissioner. I don't know if I, unfortunately I am not at my own office and if I could get someone from the Johannesburg office to assist with the photocopying, we will certainly make every attempt to get a
copy to the members of the Committee, this evening.
ADV DE JAGER: If after the adjournment, you could come and
we can try to work out something about the copies and the availability and when they will be available.
JUDGE WILSON: I agree entirely with what Mr de Jager has said and this is why I have been asking you the questions I have, in that you have challenged the applicant's evidence about Sibisi taking them to Lydenburg. You said Sibisi was threatened, but you didn't challenge the applicant's version that Sibisi took them home in his car and they went to Sibisi's house and because they knew the Security Branch was going to be hot on their heels, they dispersed.
So I took it that that was not in issue that you accepted that. So that is why I agree - if you are going to challenge certain portions, then you must challenge all the portions you disagree with, otherwise we will believe that you accept the others or you simply say I am not going to
bother about matters of this nature, I am going to concentrate on the one, but if you start challenging bits of his evidence on other matters, then I think we have to go into all of it, otherwise we will accept the rest as being correct.
I think we should take the adjournment now to enable you to consult with the persons present and therefore, thereafter to consider the record. Very well, we will take the adjournment now, optimistically until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR BLACK: ; Mr Chairman, with regard to the time, you will appreciate that the victims and affected parties must come from Daveyton and if there is any delay, it may be probably, we will do everything possible to sort out that
transportation.
ADV DE JAGER: ... the only people present this morning at
nine o'clock was in fact the victims.
MR BLACK: Yes, the victims were certainly here on time.
JUDGE WILSON: ; Until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman my learned friend, Mr Currin and I have had several discussions about the further conduct of this particular hearing which we have mentioned to you in chambers, but I would prefer, I call upon Mr Currin to inform the Committee as to what he is - I understand he is seeking a formal postponement of the matter.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. Mr Chairman our position is that we would like the further presentation of the applicant's case to be postponed. There are witnesses that we need to consult with and which we would need to lead in support of the applicant's application and for that reason I would like to record the agreement that he will stand down, that my learned friend has agreed not to proceed with cross-examination at this stage and that we would technically close our case to enable the victims to lead their evidence.
We will not cross-examine them and at a later stage we will reserve our rights to cross-examine and at a later stage after we have led further evidence, we may well cross-examine. That is my understanding of the arrangement.
JUDGE WILSON: ; Well, could I suggest a few refinements to your agreement. Firstly, as you are well aware Mr Currin, it is normal practice not to speak to your client while he is subject to cross-examination, but in the circumstances
here it seems to me that Mr Black might well wave that to allow you to take further instructions from your client with the view to the further evidence you are going to lead. Do you agree Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Yes, I have no objection to that Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: The second point is perhaps of a highly
technical nature, is while you said there will be no cross-examination, I think it might be desirable if there is any matter that should be clarified, that you ask questions for that purpose, so we are fully aware there may be a possibility of misunderstanding between what your client has said and what they are saying and if you want to merely question for that purpose, I don't think that would be regarded as cross-examination and I don't think Mr Black would object to that either, would you?
MR BLACK: No, Mr Chairman and I understand further that Mr Ndlovu should the matter proceed, will be recalled.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
MR BLACK: To enable me to continue with cross-examination.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes. And it may also be possible for Mr Currin when he has considered his position to notify you that he does not require the presence of one or more or all of the victims who have given evidence, that we won't, we will take steps to ensure that they are not brought here for no purpose. So, you can keep in touch with one another and make such arrangements.
ADV DE JAGER: If any further documentation would be used, could that kindly be furnished beforehand so that we could have it beforehand and study it so that there won't be a delay on that again.
JUDGE WILSON: We should perhaps record that we have this morning received copies of the record which Mr Currin made available yesterday.
MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: The applicant may now step down. He has been told what is set. Are you in a position to proceed Mr Black, have you had an opportunity to talk to ...
WITNESS STANDS DOWN
MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman I have explained the position to the victims as it were and they are anxious that they proceed and that be no further delays. They are all working and ... I will therefore, with the Committee's permission, call two witnesses in respect of what occurred at the house on this fatal day of the 2nd of July 1987 and in that regard the first witness to testify is Mr Godfrey Masupa. His evidence in court at the initial trial of this matter appears in volume 1, on page 31 of that particular record.
Mr Masupa will testify in Sotho.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it that there is a Sotho interpreter. Will you please kindly now interpret the oath to the witness, will you stand please?
GODFREY MASUPA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I seem to have a bit of a problem here with this device. Perhaps I could ask someone to help me.
JUDGE WILSON: Is there another microphone available or ...
MS KHAMPEPE: Is there English translation on channel 2 Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, can you hear me, is it comfortable?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I hear you Sir.
MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, where do you reside? Where do you live?
MR MASUPA: I am staying at 1273, Daveyton.
MR BLACK: Could you please just speak slowly and pull the microphone closer to you. Pull that - yes, pull it closer to you. And during July of 1987, where were you living?
MR MASUPA: I was staying at 1273, Daveyton.
MR BLACK: Yes, please slowly Mr Masupa. Now, whose house is that?
MR MASUPA: That is my parents' home, sir.
MR BLACK: And who was the owner of that house? Was your father alive?
MR MASUPA: My father has since died, Sir.
MR BLACK: Yes, so who was the owner of the house at the time of this incident?
MR MASUPA: It was the house, it was belonging to Elinale Masupa.
MR BLACK: Elinale Masupa? Now, could you just tell the court at that time were you working?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I was working at that time, Sir.
MR BLACK: What were you doing?
MR MASUPA: I was working at the battery company in Benoni.
MR BLACK: So you had nothing to do with the shopping complex which belonged to your grandfather?
MR MASUPA: No Sir, I was not working there and I had no interest in that company.
MR BLACK: Now, on the night of the 2nd of July 1987, you were watching television together with a number of other people, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Who was all there?
MR MASUPA: I was with my mother who is Elinale, my
sister Christina Masupa, my other sister who visited us from Durban who was Melzinah, my other sister who was staying with him, who is Eunice and Catherine Nkosi.
MR BLACK: Is that Melzinah Mbatha?
MR MASUPA: Yes, that is Melzinah Mbatha.
MR BLACK: And Eunice Shabangu?
MR MASUPA: Yes, that is true, Sir. Trevor Cindi, Catherine Nkosi, myself and Richard Mbatha and Mrs Mbatha who visited from Durban and other two children who were at the house at that time.
MR BLACK: Now these two little children, I understand from the court record, at that time the one was aged about one year old and the other was a few months old?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they were little children, Sir.
MR BLACK: Right, so you were watching television and then what happened next?
MR MASUPA: Whilst we were still watching TV, lights were switched off - half the lights were switched off. Then we heard a knock at the kitchen door.
MR BLACK: Okay, can you just stop there please. The lights switched off, what do you mean by that? The lights, you say the lights were switched off, is that all the lights in the house or one room?
MR MASUPA: Yes, the whole house.
MR BLACK: So, how can people, where is your metre box or main switch situated?
MR MASUPA: The metre box is outside the house Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I think to a large extend you could ask more leading questions and Mr Currin would object if he is, but to expedite proceedings - as long as you are not
objecting, you could proceed.
INTERPRETER: (The speaker's microphone is not on)
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, your microphone.
MR BLACK: The meter box is situated outside the house and this house consists of a four roomed house, which the same as all the other houses in that area, is that so?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Right, and there are two entrances to this house? There is the main, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: A plan of the house has been made available as part of the record which was made available yesterday and we have also heard this evidence from the previous witness.
MR BLACK: Yes. Right, Mr Masupa, the door to the main entrance of the house, was that locked on that night?
MR MASUPA: Yes, it was locked.
MR BLACK: Now the kitchen door, that was unlocked?
MR MASUPA: It was not locked, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay, right, while you're watching television all the lights go off. The next, what happens next?
MR MASUPA: We heard a knock at the door. My mother asked them who is knocking, then they said comrades, then they entered the house.
MR BLACK: Where was your mother then?
MR MASUPA: She was at the kitchen Sir.
MR BLACK: And where were you?
MR MASUPA: I was sitting at the dining room, Sir.
MR BLACK: Watching television?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay. And did people enter the house or did you hear people enter the house?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I heard people coming inside the house Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay. Did you hear your mother saying who is that?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay, then what happened?
MR MASUPA: My mother said come in, then they said they
are comrades, then they entered the house, it was dark at the time. Then they called saying Mantha, then they switched on the lights and switched off again. Then Mantha went to the kitchen, then she said Vusi, what do you want? Switch on the lights, let us talk. During that time, she said we're smelling petrol.
Then after saying that, when I inhaled, went to the kitchen I saw a flame of fire. When I met that flame, children were crying at that time, they said brother, we ask you for help.
MR BLACK: Where were the children?
MR MASUPA: I didn't see the children at that time, but I heard them just crying. I was trying to break the burglar proofs so that I should help those who were inside.
MR BLACK: Okay, let's just slow down there please. You went to, did you go to the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen.
MR BLACK: Right and you heard the crying. Did you see who was in the kitchen? Was Mantha in the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir.
MR BLACK: Was your mother there?
MR MASUPA: My mother was in the kitchen also Sir.
MR BLACK: Did you see who else was in the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: I was not able to see other people were inside, Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu ran to one of the bedrooms, that is where I heard their cry. Then I went there to look for them inside the bedroom so that I would be able to help them there. At that time the door was closed, we were not able to go out.
MR BLACK: Which door are you talking about?
MR MASUPA: The kitchen door, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay, and the other door was locked?
MR MASUPA: Yes, it was locked, Sir.
MR BLACK: Right, then you said you tried to break the burglar proofs, or what?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: What did you do?
MR MASUPA: I tried to break the burglar proofs and I was burning, then I tried to drag the wardrobe. Luckily the wardrobe helped us to be alive and those children were burnt at that time, that is Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu.
MR CURRIN: Sorry Mr Chairman. The evidence in the record regarding what they did in the house in the bedroom to help to get the children out, we are not contesting any of that evidence. So to the extend that it is going to be repeated, I would just like to record that we are not contesting any of that evidence.
MR BLACK: May I proceed Mr Chairman? Right, you tried to - did you try and get the children out?
MR MASUPA: Yes, that is Melzinah Mbatha and Eunice Shabangu.
MR BLACK: Yes, and they died on the scene, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: After we were able to open the door, we ran to the police station to look for help.
MR BLACK: Just hold on please. You saw flames, what did you do?
MR MASUPA: I tried to break the burglar proofs.
MR BLACK: Yes, and then what?
MR MASUPA: I was unable to do that because they were hot then. I was able to make the wardrobe fall down, then it was able to die off the fire.
MR BLACK: What did you do then?
MR MASUPA: Then, after that the door was, whilst I was still at the bedroom the door was opened, then I ran to the police station to look for help. Then I came back with the ambulance.
MR BLACK: Okay, now before you get there, before you get there, the door, when you always refer to the door, you're talking about the kitchen door, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: So you ran through the flames in - the kitchen was full of flames, burning?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir. Then I went straight to the police station to look for help. They took me to the ambulance station, then I came back with the two ambulance cars, then we took two children. Then our neighbours were already there to help us. We took them to the hospital.
MR BLACK: Right. Now tell me, were you injured at all?
MR MASUPA: Yes, yes, I was injured Sir.
MR BLACK: Well can you explain what injuries you suffered?
MR MASUPA: I was burnt on the face and then flesh was removed from my hands, then I was burnt on the lower parts of my body. I stayed three months in hospital.
MR BLACK: Those are still scars that is on your hands and your face, is that right?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: And your eyes, what happened to that?
MR MASUPA: My right eye was damaged, then they put me a new eye, or a false eye.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now, the evidence of Mr Ndlovu was that when he entered that house, he after he spent some time in that house trying to persuade the occupants of that house, to evacuate that house and he explained what they intended
to do to the house and that is why you must all get out. His evidence was that he - it wasn't just a brief time, he explained over, he made several attempts to get you out of the house before setting the house alight, did that happen?
MR MASUPA: No, Sir, that is not true.
MR BLACK: Did he make any attempt that you saw to go into the house to get the children out of the house, persuade any other of the occupants to remove themselves from the house?
MR MASUPA: No Sir, they didn't waste time after they arrived in the house. They didn't waste time. They just came and did what they intended to do. They didn't even give us a chance to go out. If they gave us a chance to go out, we could not have been injured.
MR BLACK: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Who were they who came into the house, you say they didn't waste time?
MR MASUPA: My late sister who told us the saying Vusi, which means it is Vusi is the one who is called Absalom Gobela. That is the one whom my sister called his name, that is the one I was able to identify.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember you gave evidence at the trial?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: And there you said there were two people who came into the house Vusi and Phineas.
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, now you've told us the only one you know was your sister called us Vusi? Which is the correct...
MR MASUPA: The truth is that she called Vusi because she said to Vusi what do you want, let us talk. Phineas at that time was with him, there were two people who were in the house.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, did you see him?
MR MASUPA: Phineas?
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you a few minutes ago say that you didn't, that the only person that you saw there, the only person you could identify as being there was Vusi because your sister called out his name, that is how I understood your evidence?
MR MASUPA: She called Vusi's name and Phineas was together with him, she didn't call Phineas, but they were two. She didn't say Vusi, Phineas, she said Vusi, but they were together.
ADV DE JAGER: Would it be correct if I say you didn't know Phineas' name before or did you know his name?
MR MASUPA: Phineas?
ADV DE JAGER: ; Yes.
MR MASUPA: Yes, he grew in the area, I know him.
ADV DE JAGER: So you knew him? Were you in fact able to see him there?
MR MASUPA: Do you mean Phineas?
ADV DE JAGER: When were you able to see him, weren't the lights out? When did you recognise him?
MR MASUPA: When they entered the house, they entered when it was dark and when they said Mantha, it is when they switched on the lights, then Mantha called his, Vusi's name.
MS KHAMPEPE: But Sir, when you got to the kitchen, you saw two people and you were able to remember that one of them was Vusi because Mantha called his name. Were you able to recognise Phineas Ndlovu, who grew up in front of you?
MR MASUPA: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: And you can today say with certainty that he was in the kitchen on that night, that him and Phineas, no Phineas Ndlovu and Vusi Gobela were in the kitchen on the 2nd of July, that night?
MR MASUPA: Yes, both of them were in the kitchen.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you perhaps make a mistake during the trial when you only mentioned Vusi and you failed to mention Phineas.
JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned Phineas in the trial.
MS KHAMPEPE: You only mentioned Phineas Ndlovu.
JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned both of them at the trial.
MS KHAMPEPE: He did, oh?
JUDGE WILSON: He mentioned both of them in the trial, he didn't mention Phineas before us today.
MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought it was the other way around, I thought my Committee member had said that you had not mentioned Phineas Ndlovu at the trial.
JUDGE WILSON: You mentioned Phineas at the trial, you did not mention Phineas earlier in your evidence, is that not the position? Here today you did not mention Phineas until I began questioning you.
MR MASUPA: I was explaining to the Committee that both of them entered the house. Vusi is the one who was being
called by my sister and Phineas was with him.
JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you perhaps mention Vusi because Mantha had called Vusi by name?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Ma'am.
MR BLACK: Right, Mr Masupa, you were satisfied and you
testified at the trial that there were at least these two people in the kitchen, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay. But did you go to the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen.
MR BLACK: At what stage did you go? At what time did you go to that kitchen? Did you go into the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I went to the kitchen whilst Mantha said the petrol, we are smelling petrol in the kitchen.
MR BLACK: Okay, so you heard her say that and then you went to go and investigate, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: Now, the important point is at no time did any of those two people who had entered your house, attempt to persuade you or any other member inside that house, to vacate the house before the petrol was set alight, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is correct, they never gave us time to be out of the house.
MR BLACK: Yes, okay. Now, you suffered extensive burn injuries, you've lost the sight of your eye. What about personal belongings inside that house, what happened to them?
MR MASUPA: The property was damaged in the house and the house was also burnt.
MR BLACK: When you say damaged, what do you mean? Completely burnt out?
MR MASUPA: We couldn't use them any more, they were completely burnt.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now there are one or two other issues I just want to clear up with you. As far as Mantha or
Christina, your late sister is concerned, was she a political activist and a student?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And was she regarded as a comrade?
MR MASUPA: Yes, she was regarded as a comrade.
MR BLACK: And as far as - what standard was she in then?
MR MASUPA: She was doing standard 9.
MR BLACK: Standard 9, right. You've heard the evidence of Mr Ndlovu and it has been explained to you that we will get an opportunity to ask him questions on that, further questions. But Mr Ndlovu says that he was also in standard 9 and at Davey High School. Do you know if he was at school? He was your neighbour.
MR MASUPA: I will briefly explain to this Committee about Mr Ndlovu. He grew up at his mother's place, that is in the Sotho section and they moved to our area and he came to be our neighbours.
MR BLACK: When was ...
MR MASUPA: He didn't go to school at that time.
MR BLACK: Okay, but now how old - when - you must be a bit, we don't know the times and the dates or the year you are talking about. When was this, in the same year?
MR MASUPA: They arrived in 1985 to be our neighbours, that is Phineas Ndlovu.
MR BLACK: And his mother?
MR MASUPA: Yes.
MR BLACK: Was he attending school then?
MR MASUPA: No, he was not schooling.
MR BLACK: Did he attend school at any time after 1985?
MR MASUPA: After 1985, there were riots until in 1987 when they were arrested.
MR BLACK: Yes ... (tape ends) and I understand Hendrik Masupa who has been mentioned, is he - he is your younger brother, is that so?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Did he sleep at that house?
MR MASUPA: No, it was years of not sleeping at home.
MR BLACK: And we are talking about the house that was burnt down now. And where did he sleep?
MR MASUPA: He used to sleep at my grandfather's shop.
MR BLACK: Is this the shopping complex which was referred to earlier on in the evidence of Mr Ndlovu?
MR MASUPA: That is correct, that is the same store Sir.
MR BLACK: Right, and as far as, if I may refer to him as Hendrik, is concerned, was he attending school?
MR MASUPA: Yes, he was schooling.
MR BLACK: What standard was he in at the time this happened?
MR MASUPA: He was doing standard 8.
MR BLACK: And what school was he attending?
MR MASUPA: Davey Senior Secondary School.
MR BLACK: Okay. As far as Phineas Ndlovu and his family is concerned, was there any difficulties or problems between your family and his family?
MR MASUPA: There were not problems at all between the two families.
MR BLACK: Was there any reason whatsoever to your knowledge why Mr Ndlovu and his friends arrived at your house, your mother's house and set it alight with everyone inside?
MR MASUPA: I do not bear any knowledge up to now, Sir.
MR BLACK: They did not give you any reasons when they
entered the house?
MR MASUPA: No Sir.
MR BLACK: And your knowledge of Mr Phineas Ndlovu's activities, he claims that he was a scholar and that he also was a comrade. What is your knowledge of his activities in that area?
MR MASUPA: I can testify before this Committee that he was not schooling. The comradeship that he referred to was the comradeship of robbing people, of stealing cars from people, of taking food from the delivery vans in the township. That he was a comrade, a real comrade, I do not want to testify to that effect.
MR BLACK: What do you mean by that, was he regarded, was he regarded, was he considered in the community to be a comrade?
MR MASUPA: No Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by comrade?
MR MASUPA: A comrade is a person involved in politics. That is my understanding.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, were comrades in your area not involved in stopping delivery trucks?
MR MASUPA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you know anything about a people's court?
MR MASUPA: There is nothing I know about the people's court, Sir.
ADV DE JAGER: During those days, everybody was almost politically active, wasn't it so? And your sister Mantha
was also a comrade and a political activist?
MR MASUPA: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Who was the leader of Mantha and her comrades' group?
MR MASUPA: I know a person called Aubrey.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know him as the leader of Mantha's group?
MR MASUPA: I know him very well, he used to frequent our home.
JUDGE WILSON: Was he the leader of Mantha's group? Was he connected with the group that Mantha associated with, the comrades?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was he a scholar?
MR MASUPA: Yes, he was also at Davey Senior Secondary School.
ADV DE JAGER: The people - on entering the house - was there only one speaker or did both of them or more of the people entering the house, address you and speak out?
MR MASUPA: I couldn't understand, I couldn't hear well what they said, but there was talking in the kitchen.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, how soon after you had heard people coming into the kitchen, did you go to the kitchen to join them?
MR MASUPA: I went to the kitchen when the deceased, Mantha, said we are smelling petrol.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was it after some time or was it immediately after you had heard people coming into the kitchen?
MR MASUPA: That was after they called her name, Mantha.
JUDGE WILSON: Was the talking in the kitchen before they called Mantha's name?
MR MASUPA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, when did it happen - the talking, you said there was talking in the kitchen but you couldn't hear what they said.
MR MASUPA: The called Mantha, Mantha went to the kitchen and she said to them Vusi, what do you want, talk and she said I am smelling petrol.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but a moment you said to us I could not hear well what they said, but there was talking in the kitchen. What did you mean by that?
MR MASUPA: I mean they were talking, but they were not shouting. There was no noise.
JUDGE WILSON: When were they talking?
MR MASUPA: They came into the house, they called Mantha, she went to the kitchen.
JUDGE WILSON: And they talked then, did they?
MR MASUPA: It means they talked to her because she replied. Because she went on to say I am smelling petrol.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was your mother present when Mantha went to the kitchen, was she there?
MR MASUPA: Yes, she was in the kitchen.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you still want to lead Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Yes, I thought there was still ... Mr Masupa, as far as Mr Ndlovu is concerned, his activities, you say you know him well, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: I know him very well.
MR BLACK: Alright. Do you know anything - did you know Mr Sibisi?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I know Mr Sibisi.
MR BLACK: Now, how do you know him?
MR MASUPA: He was staying at the next street from my
grandfather's shop and he had a car.
MR BLACK: Yes, and what do you know about that now? Did Mr Ndlovu know Mr Sibisi, do you know anything about it, could you please just tell us what ...
MR MASUPA: Mr Phineas Ndlovu and them were troubling Mr Sibisi because he had a car. They always wanted to use his car, if there was anything they wanted to do, they would go to him and he couldn't bear it any more. He said I am leaving this area, these boys are troubling me every time they come to my place and they take my car with force.
MR CURRIN: Sorry Mr Chairman, is this not hearsay evidence and what is its relevance? If it is hearsay, I do object to it. Are you going to call Mr Sibisi to say that this is what he has been saying?
MR BLACK: It is not hearsay in the sense that Mr Sibisi told him, told him and this is - no ...
JUDGE WILSON: Isn't hearsay clearly what somebody tells you?
MR CURRIN: It is hearsay in the sense of what allegedly these people did, but he, Sibisi gave him a reason for leaving the area. That is it, whether it is true or not, it is immaterial.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, since we've practised, I believe the Act has been changed. Hearsay evidence can be allowed, whether is has got any value, that is another thing.
MR CURRIN: Just in the spirit of the nature of cross-examination for the purposes of this Committee, I would suggest that maybe this evidence is really not relevant.
MR BLACK: Well, I don't want to get embroiled at this stage.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, I think it is finished now hasn't it, so let's go on.
MR BLACK: Now you heard Mr Ndlovu testify yesterday, he addressed you and the family at length asking for forgiveness for what he had done. What is your attitude
towards, what do you feel about that?
MR MASUPA: I will never forgive Mr Ndlovu. If it were possible for him to raise my dead sister, I would forgive him, but I am not in a position to forgive him now. I am not referred to as - people don't refer to me with my name, they call me a burnt person and I don't want to pretend that I will forgive him. God please forgive me, I don't have forgiveness in my heart. We are here to speak the truth, to reconcile, but I am sorry, I cannot.
MR BLACK: Did you at that time, Mr Masupa, regard the actions of Mr Ndlovu and his friends as acts carried out by comrades? Is that what you expected comrades to do, let's put it that way?
MR MASUPA: No Sir. I never expected the comrades to burn the house. Comrades are fighting for truth and justice.
MR BLACK: Just to clarify one little issue. You were asked about certain political activities that took place in the township, were you working during say the year of 1987?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I was working.
MR BLACK: Were you working on a full time basis?
MR MASUPA: Yes, I used to go to work at seven and knock off at four.
MR BLACK: Were you in any way involved in any political activities in the sense of ...
MR MASUPA: No, Sir, I was not involved in any political activities.
MR BLACK: Okay I have nothing further to add, thank you Mr
Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, I will only ask you one question pursuant to what has been led by Mr Black. To your
knowledge did the comrades not burn down houses of people who were perceived to be informers in your area?
MR MASUPA: I don't remember of such an incident. That -our house was the first to be burnt, that is according to my knowledge.
MR CURRIN: Just two questions for clarification.
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, may I - before, there was one question I omitted to put to the witness.
JUDGE WILSON: You may go on.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you. Mr Masupa, do you know whether the comrades in that area that you knew, approved of the fact that your house had been burnt down?
MR MASUPA: No Sir.
MR BLACK: Why do you say that?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you are asking whether he knows whether they approved. He said well, I don't know, so I presume the answer would mean he doesn't know whether they approved or disapproved.
MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, do you know whether the comrades in that area said that it was the right thing to do, did they approve of the burning of your house or not? Did they approve of it or did they not approve of it?
MR MASUPA: No, they didn't approve it. Because even when we were at the hospital, the comrades came to visit us. Aubrey and them came to visit us at the hospital.
MR BLACK: Yes, but when they came to visit you did they say that it was the right thing or the wrong thing that was
done?
MR MASUPA: They were telling us about the thugs that attacked us in the house. They told us how they arrested some of them, they got hold of them all. After we were
burnt in the house, the comrades went out searching for them and they found them.
MR BLACK: Yes, so are you saying that it was made clear to you by comrades there that they did not approve of this act?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they were totally against the burning of our house. They came to see us at the hospital.
MR BLACK: Yes, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .
MS KHAMPEPE: When you say comrades Mr Masupa, you are referring to Aubrey and who else?
MR MASUPA: I won't be in a position to give names. I know Aubrey for a fact that he was their leader because he used to come at my home and they would go away with Mantha and while we were at the hospital, they came in large numbers. Some of them I do not know, but every time he was introducing them as comrades. Some of them were new to me, it was my first time to see them. But I knew him for a fact that he had been to my home a few times.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were these comrades also scholars? Did they also attend the same school as Mantha?
MR MASUPA: That is my understanding.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know Aubrey's other name?
MR MASUPA: No, that is the only name I know, Aubrey.
JUDGE WILSON: Does Aubrey still live in the district?
MR MASUPA: Yes Sir, he is still around.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know where he lives?
MR MASUPA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: So you would have no difficulty in pointing Aubrey out and telling someone where they can find him?
MR MASUPA: I won't have problems Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Now, were there different groups of comrades
as far as you were concerned or was there just one group of comrades?
MR MASUPA: It is just one group of comrades, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: And Aubrey is the leader?
MR MASUPA: That is correct, he was the leader of that group.
MS KHAMPEPE: How did you know that Aubrey was the leader of the comrades, was this information volunteered by Mantha?
MR MASUPA: Yes, my sister Mantha told me that Aubrey was their leader.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was Hendrik also a comrade?
MR MASUPA: No, he wasn't a comrade.
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, once again, may I just place on record. For the sake of the Committee and should we try and trace - I am informed that Aubrey that has been referred to is a member of the Civic Association in Daveyton at the moment, so we will try and get hold of him.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman, just two questions for clarification. I would like to reserve my cross-examination for later if necessary. The one is you mentioned following a leading question that this incident happened on the 2nd of July, was it not the 2nd of June, just for clarification, just for record purposes? Right at the beginning you said the 2nd of July and he agreed it was the 2nd of July, was it not the 2nd of June?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE WILSON: ; The indictment that we have been given a copy
of, says the 2nd of July.
MR CURRIN: Okay. Our record says the 2nd of June, but it must be our mistake and I am glad that that has been
clarified, thank you. The other question, just for clarification with regard to the doors, you said the front door which is in the sitting room and the dining room, was locked. Where was the key?
MR MASUPA: The key was - it was a bundle of keys, some of the keys were for the coal box and one person in the house must have gone to fetch the coal from outside and he didn't put the key back.
MR CURRIN: So the door was locked and the key was not in the door, is that what you are saying?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: The - if the key had been in the door and if it had been possible to open that door, looking at the plan of the house, I assume it would have been very easy for every one in the bedrooms to go out through the front door, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions for clarification.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN: .
JUDGE WILSON: I have a few questions I would like to ask you. Do you know Johannes Sitoga?
MR MASUPA: I know him.
JUDGE WILSON: How do you know him or from where do you know him?
MR MASUPA: His mother stays opposite our house.
JUDGE WILSON: And does he live with his mother?
MR MASUPA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Was he a scholar?
MR MASUPA: Yes, he was schooling.
JUDGE WILSON: Was he a friend of Mantha's or any of your other relations?
MR MASUPA: No, he wasn't a friend to Mantha.
JUDGE WILSON: The next one is Lazarus Matsomai
MR MASUPA: I know him.
JUDGE WILSON: Where do you know him from?
MR MASUPA: He once came home with Hendrik. They were together at school.
JUDGE WILSON: Did they appear to be friendly?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they are still friends even today because he spends some of his nights at home.
JUDGE WILSON: Phineas, well you've told us about Phineas, Vusi, Absalom Gobela, do you know him?
MR MASUPA: I know him, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Where from?
MR MASUPA: He was in the same street with Phineas Ndlovu, but a little bit further.
JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?
MR MASUPA: No, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Patrick Mahlangu?
MR MASUPA: I know him.
JUDGE WILSON: Where from?
MR MASUPA: The street next to Phineas Ndlovu's.
JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?
MR MASUPA: No, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: How did you come to know him?
MR MASUPA: I just know him because he was around the township.
JUDGE WILSON: And finally Elias Ratone?
MR MASUPA: I know him Sir. We live in the same street.
JUDGE WILSON: And was he schooling?
MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir he was at school.
JUDGE WILSON: The same school as Mantha or Hendrik?
MR MASUPA: I do not have knowledge to that extend Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he ever come to your house?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they used to come to my home.
JUDGE WILSON: What to do?
MR MASUPA: My mother sells ice cubes and food for the school children.
JUDGE WILSON: And they come to buy from her?
MR MASUPA: Yes, Sir, they used to come and buy.
JUDGE WILSON: How many more witnesses have you got, Mr Black?
MR BLACK: There are two further witnesses. Mrs Masupa who was the lady in the kitchen and the owner of the house and if there is time, I would put Hendrik in who can testify to certain events leading up to the incident.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, we commenced late which means that the three of us came into this room late, but I am fully aware of the fact that other people may have been here for some considerable time. Would they like to take an adjournment at this - a short adjournment at this stage? If so could they indicate? I gather that it would be desirable. We will take a short adjournment and will we please be informed as soon as everybody has been able to attend to what they have to and comes back.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE WILSON: What language?
MRS MASUPA: I will testify in Zulu.
ADV DE JAGER: I noticed that somebody of the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee is present. We will have no objection is he is assisting them to ...
MR BLACK: I would greatly appreciate that, thank you.
ELINALE MASUPA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mrs Masupa, is it correct that on the 2nd of July 1987 you were the owner of house number 12743, Mocke Street, Daveyton and that on the night of the burning down of your house you were the owner, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct. ...(tape ends)
MR BLACK: Now, on the night of July 1987, you were at home and in the kitchen at about nine o'clock?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And who else was in the kitchen with you?
MRS MASUPA: I was with my two children, I was the third one, I was with Eunice and Melzinah.
MR BLACK: That is Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Could you - while you were in the kitchen, could you just tell the Commission, the Committee what happened?
MRS MASUPA: Whilst I was in the kitchen, I had just made tea, as I was taking the cup and sitting down preparing myself to enjoy my tea, I saw the lights go off and there was a knock at the door. And when I asked as to who was knocking at that time when it was dark, they said they were comrades and they knocked and actually got into the house without me having said they should come in and I asked them as to who they were, they told me they were comrades.
I told them to switch on the lights if they were comrades and at this stage they called Mantha's name.
INTERPRETER: Mrs Masupa, could you please take your time because all that you are saying should be written down, even the people that you are mentioning should be written down
and there is an interpretation or a translation that is going on, so could you please speak slowly so as to enable them to keep pace.
MR BLACK: Mrs Masupa, let us just go one step back. You were inside the kitchen with your children Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: It is true.
MR BLACK: Both of those two children of yours died in the fire?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Right. While you were busy settling down to have a cup of tea, you saw the lights go off and somebody knocking at the door?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: Okay. They entered, you asked who they were and they said they were comrades?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Okay, what did you then say to them? Were the lights still off when they came in? Was it still dark when they came in?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, the lights were off at that stage.
MR BLACK: Okay, right, what happened next?
MRS MASUPA: I said to them they should put on the lights if they were comrades and they called out Mantha's name. Mantha came whilst it was dark and they switched the light on and they switched it off once more. That was a quick motion. And Mantha asked as to what was happening. And she asked them to switch on the lights so that they could talk
and within a short space of time, I saw some fire, it happened so quickly.
MR BLACK: So did Mantha mention a person's name? Mrs
Masupa, did Mantha mention somebody's name?
MRS MASUPA: She said Phineas and Vusi. She called Phineas and Vusi's name out.
MR BLACK: Now you say it all happened very quickly. Is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: When the lights went off the second time, what happened?
MRS MASUPA: That is when I saw fire breaking out.
MR BLACK: Right, yes, then carry on. Carry on, what happened then?
MRS MASUPA: Then a fire broke out immediately after the switching on and off of the lights and after Mantha had spoken to them and the house was in flames at that stage.
MR BLACK: Yes, and where did you see the fire start, was it in the kitchen?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, the fire started at the kitchen, just next to where I was sitting.
MR BLACK: Yes? Then what happened?
MRS MASUPA: When the fire broke out, I jumped out of the chair, my children ran into the bedrooms and after setting the house alight, they ran away and they closed the door behind them, trapping us inside the house and I was fighting and trying to open up the door and I realised that Mantha had fallen on the floor or on the ground.
MR BLACK: Okay, let's just stop there. Can you remember how many people came into the kitchen? How many people came in from outside into the kitchen?
MRS MASUPA: Two people.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now you say when the fire started, they ran out of the door, the kitchen door, is that so?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct, yes.
MR BLACK: And they closed the door behind them?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct. When they went out, they shut the door after them.
MR BLACK: And you said you were struggling to open the door?
MRS MASUPA: I followed them and I held the door so that they couldn't shut it and we struggled for the door. They were pulling the door trapping me inside and I was pulling it towards me trying to open up, but I ultimately managed to go out.
MR BLACK: So there was actually, there was a person on the other side actually trying to pull that door closed and hold it closed and you were trying to pull it open, there was a struggle?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: Right. You managed to get out the kitchen, then what happened?
MRS MASUPA: As I got outside, I looked back and I saw the flames looming in the house and as I was looking I saw Mantha struggling on the floor and I got into the house, I pulled her out of the house, I was screaming at that time and she was in flames. I could hear the other children screaming in the house. I climbed on top of the bed and I peeped through the window and there is another one who came and pushed the window, trying to trap me inside so that I couldn't look out and at that time I was fighting in the flames trying to get out as well as getting the children out.
MR BLACK: And you saw Mantha laying, it was on the kitchen floor was it? Mantha was on the kitchen floor?
MRS MASUPA: That is true and she was struggling, she was
burning, she was laying on the ground in flames.
MR BLACK: And the window which you tried to open and someone trying to close the window, where was that, in the kitchen?
MRS MASUPA: It was in the bedroom and I had come there for the second time, after taking Mantha out and I was trying to rescue the rest of the children.
MR BLACK: And yourself, were you burning? Were you in flames?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was in flames.
MR BLACK: And you say there was someone on the outside trying to keep the window closed when you were trying to open it?
MRS MASUPA: That is true. He pushed the window and said you dogs, voertsek, get back into the house and burn to death and the children were screaming inside the house.
MR BLACK: Right, and then what happened to you? Sorry, did you say you left, you got out?
MRS MASUPA: We got out of the house because the house was now in flames and the flames were starting to touch the bedrooms and we went outside the house itself.
MR BLACK: And yourself, were you also in flames?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was in flames at that time, but I was better off because I was wearing woollen clothes and they were not all ignited, but the other children were badly burned.
MR BLACK: What happened to the two little children, one aged about one year old and the other a few months old?
MRS MASUPA: When we went outside, Mr Mbatha was trying to
break the window, the front window and rescue the children. So he rescued the children through the window as well as his wife. They were the only ones who were able to get out
through the windows.
MR BLACK: That is Mr Richard Mbatha?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And his wife's name, what is her name?
MRS MASUPA: Her name is Elsaphina Mbatha.
MR BLACK: So Mr Richard Mbatha made sure that the little children got out first, he passed them through the window?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And what is your, what happened after that, after the whole house was suddenly in flames?
MRS MASUPA: Thereafter we were looking for Godfrey and we couldn't get him, we went all over the place, even to the neighbours looking for Godfrey. And we discovered that the other children ran to the neighbours' places and that is where we got them. We looked for Moses but we couldn't get him, only to find that he had gone to search for some medical attention.
MR BLACK: Now Godfrey is your son, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, that is true.
MR BLACK: And, so then did medical attention arrive or help arrive?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, the people came, the neighbours came. Even the ones who came thereafter, they were not able to help us because the house was in flames by then and they didn't know how to help us.
MR BLACK: And there were people trapped inside the house, is that correct? There were people inside the house while it was burning?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, there were people inside the house whilst it was burning.
MR BLACK: But you managed to pull Christina out, that's
Mantha, out of the flames of the kitchen?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, I was able to do that because she had fallen on the ground and she had lifted her hands up. I managed to pull her out.
MR BLACK: But she died subsequently, is that so?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: So you lost three daughters there, Christina Masupa, Eunice Shabangu and Melzinah Mbatha, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: As far as the contents of your house is concerned, was anything saved?
MRS MASUPA: The contents were badly damaged, because even now there are some of the remains of the badly damaged furniture, I had to start from scratch since that day. And I had to refurbish the house.
MR BLACK: Now, I just want to Mrs Masupa, you were working at that time, is it not so?
MRS MASUPA: That is true, I was working.
MR BLACK: And what type of work were you doing?
MRS MASUPA: We were, I was working at Hendler & Hendler, I was decorating pots.
MR BLACK: Yes. So you didn't have your own business and you weren't a wealthy person, is that so?
MRS MASUPA: I didn't have anything I was just an ordinary person.
MR BLACK: And you lost everything in that fire and you had to start rebuilding your house even, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: Mrs Masupa, I just want to get onto some of the things which have been said by Mr Ndlovu. He says that
when he and his friends entered that house, they had quite a discussion with you and the other people in the kitchen. They discussed the behaviour of Hendrik, they informed you that they were going to burn down the house, they made a number of attempts to persuade the inhabitants of that house to in fact, vacate the house. Did that happen?
MRS MASUPA: It did not happen like that. Because if it happened like that, we would have been able to save ourselves and survive, because we didn't care much about the property, our lives were much more important than the property itself. We would have been able to get out had they given us a chance. They never even wanted to speak, even when Mantha pleaded with them to switch on the lights, they did not want to do so, they went on with their mission.
MR BLACK: He also says that the kitchen door, there was something wrong with the kitchen door handle and it was difficult for them to get out, was that the case?
MRS MASUPA: That is a blatant lie. And I would have liked the people to go and see the door because there is nothing that was wrong with the door, it is still even like that, even now. Nothing has changed and the door was working properly and in proper condition.
MR BLACK: And you say that when they got out of the door, someone was actually holding the door, trying to pull it closed and you were trying to pull it open?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And did they close the door at one stage? Was the door actually pulled closed ...
MRS MASUPA: Yes, they were able to close the door.
MR BLACK: And then they held the door closed and you tried to pull it?
MRS MASUPA: That is true, because when I tried to open the door, I discovered that it was very tight and I pulled harder, that is when the door got open.
MR BLACK: Yes, and in fact, you gave evidence in the earlier court hearing and at page 64 of the court record, you make mention it is between lines 1 and 5, that you pulled on the kitchen door and you felt there was somebody on the other side holding it, but you later on managed to open it.
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: The children Melzinah Mbatha, who were they?
MRS MASUPA: They are my relatives, they had come to visit, they were from the rural areas.
MR BLACK: Okay, were they also injured?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, they were injured.
MR BLACK: Right.
MRS MASUPA: Eunice is my sister's daughter, she was staying with me at that time.
MR BLACK: And Richard Mbatha and Trevor Cindi were also injured by the fire, is that so?
MRS MASUPA: That is true.
MR BLACK: And Catherine, apart from your other three, your three daughters, Catherine Nkosi also was killed in the fire?
MRS MASUPA: That is true. Catherine is Trevor's mother.
MR BLACK: Now, if I can just return to another aspect. Hendrik Masupa is your son, is that not so?
MRS MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And he will testify and I just want you to confirm
it that for about six hears he hadn't been sleeping at your home, but that he used to sleep after work at his grandfather's shopping complex, where he used to work after
school, is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: That is true, he was asked by his grandfather to come and assist at the shop and he would also help him in return with taking him to school and we reached an agreement that he should go and stay with his grandfather and I felt that he would be safe if he worked there in stead of joining the gangsters.
MR BLACK: Was Hendrik ever a member of any gangsters or comrades, either gangsters or an organisation?
MRS MASUPA: Hendrik went to his grandfather, he did not belong to any organisation, he did not belong to any gangster, he was a scholar at the time when he was taken from me to his grandfather.
MR BLACK: And your daughter, Christina, there is evidence that she was a scholar and an active member in the comrades at school?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, that is true. She was attending school and she was a comrade as well.
MR BLACK: What standard was she in then?
MRS MASUPA: Christina was in standard 9.
MR BLACK: Now Mrs Masupa, may I ask how old are you now at the present?
MRS MASUPA: In June I will be completing 58 years, I will be 58 years old.
MR BLACK: Have you been able to work since that incident or the fire?
MRS MASUPA: I have never been able to work thereafter.
MR BLACK: Why?
MRS MASUPA: I was not able because I got injured and I could not stand for long periods of time and it is the type of work that I was doing at Hendler & Hendler and I had to
stop working because of the injuries that I sustained in the fire.
MR BLACK: Could you just briefly tell the court what injuries you sustained and what suffering you've had?
MRS MASUPA: My face was burnt, this is not my colour. My face is a different colour. My legs were injured. I always have to wear stockings whenever I go out of the house because my feet as well as my legs were injured. My right hand side as well as my right foot and leg have been severely injured and I can't stand for periods of time, I can't even do my own washing.
MR BLACK: And have you had to undergo several operations?
MRS MASUPA: Yes, I had to undergo some skin graft.
MR BLACK: Now, Mrs Masupa, yesterday you heard the evidence of Mr Ndlovu. Is that correct?
MRS MASUPA: Mr Ndlovu's testimony gave me so much pain because he is asking for amnesty, but he is telling blatant lies before this Committee. How can he even start to ask for amnesty when he can't even begin to speak the truth?
MR BLACK: You also heard Mr Ndlovu ask your forgiveness - from the family. How do you feel about that?
MRS MASUPA: I would have forgiven Ndlovu if, when he rendered his testimony he told the truth, but he gave such a fabricated version of the whole event, so much so that he dampened my spirit, he even dampened the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation that I thought I may probably have. If he could wake up the four people who could forgive
him, but what annoys me even more is the lies that he continued to tell the Committee. I loved my family and I loved my children.
MR BLACK: Thank you Mrs Masupa. I've got no further
questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mrs Masupa, did Hendrik ever sleep at home, on one, maybe on the odd occasion or did he never, ever sleep at home?
MRS MASUPA: Hendrik was no longer sleeping at my place because we had an agreement with his grandfather. Because of the cafe, they used to close very late and we realised that he would come back knocking very late at night, that is the reason why he wasn't sleeping at my place.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions for clarification. I would reserve cross-examination for later if necessary, thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: The members of the Committee have no questions to ask. I would however on behalf of the members of the Committee and I am sure on behalf of everyone else present here today, express our profound sympathy to Mrs Masupa for her tragic loss and also our admiration for the courage that she displayed under very trying and difficult circumstances. I would like her to leave here knowing that she will be in our thoughts and in our prayers. Thank you Mrs Masupa. You may go.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will call the next witness. The next witness is Mr Hendrik Masupa. Mr Masupa will also testify in Sotho.
HENDRIK MASUPA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Masupa, you are the brother to Mr Godfrey Masupa who has testified and the son of Mrs Masupa who has just given her evidence, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: During 1987, July 1987 you were at school and you were in standard 8? ... (tape ends) and your sister, the late sister, Christina also attended Davey High School, is that so?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Evidence has been given by Mr Ndlovu that he was also at that school, Davey High School in standard 9. Did you ever see him there?
MR MASUPA: That is not true because it was many years I've been attending that school, but I've never seen him in the campus of that school.
MR BLACK: Now, from a living point of view, did you used to sleep at your mother's house? There is evidence rather, let's put it this way that you did not sleep at your mother's house but that you used to sleep at your grandfather's shopping complex after work?
MR MASUPA: That is true. I may put it this way, well from the high primary up to high school I was sleeping at my grandfather's shop.
MR BLACK: Do you know Lazarus Matsomai?
MR MASUPA: Yes, Lazarus Matsomai was my friend because we attended school together.
MR BLACK: Right, and he was accused number 2 or the co
-accused in the criminal trial brought against Mr Ndlovu?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Did Lazarus Matsomai ever sleep at your grandfather's house with you?
MR MASUPA: Yes, he did sleep at many instances with me.
MR BLACK: So he knew that you, that's where you stayed and slept and that you did not sleep at your parents' home?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Now, if we can get to the 2nd of July 1987, you were working at your grandfather's shopping complex, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: And in the restaurant?
MR MASUPA: That is true, Sir.
MR BLACK: Now, there is - according to the court records of the previous criminal proceedings and for the assistance of the Committee your evidence starts on page 15 of volume 1, you said that this group of people came into the shop. A group of people including all six of these accused in the previous trial, one of whom was Mr Ndlovu. Do you remember that?
MR MASUPA: I remember that Sir.
MR BLACK: Right, now they came into the shop. Could you tell the court broadly speaking, what happened?
MR MASUPA: I'll put it this way. These people, there were six all of them, they were six. The one who gave - another girl who was selling at the counter, I was at the till at that time, they started to argue with the customers. Others pulled out sjamboks and beat the customers, other customers ran out of the shop, others ran behind the counters. When we tried to call them to order, we found
that the lady who was giving the money, I took their money then I told them that I will give you back your money, we are not going to serve you because you have beaten up our
customers and others have run away and others are behind the counter.
In that case, therefor we have no security, because they may take anything behind the counter. That is when I tried to persuade them to go out. I was together with a
certain boy who was working at the shop, who was working permanently there who is David. When we took them outside, they started to insult us. We closed the burglar doors, we closed other customers inside the shop. They started insulting. We were not worried about the insults.
What worried us was that we should help the customers so that those who are in the shop wouldn't be able to go out because it was at night. After we helped those customers, we opened the door for them. Before they left, while they were still insulting, one of them said to us you think you are better, we will burn the whole building.
MR BLACK: Okay, can you just slow down a little bit, Mr Masupa. When you say one of them said to you that you think that you are better and we will build this whole building down.
JUDGE WILSON: Burn the whole building down.
MR BLACK: Burn, burn, sorry, burn the whole building down, when you say one of them, are you referring to, who are you, are you referring to one of the six that were causing trouble?
MR MASUPA: Yes Sir. One of them amongst the six, the word came that we will come back and burn the whole shopping complex.
ADV DE JAGER: Who said that?
MR MASUPA: I am not sure who said those words amongst them, because they were at a distance. There were - where they were it was a little bit dark and all of them were insulting and talking, then he said at the shop you are full of shit.
MR BLACK: Were they sober at the time? Had they been drinking or were they sober?
MR MASUPA: According to my observation they were drunk because if you know a person and when you discipline him, not trying to hear you, according to my observation they were drunk. They were not even listening to me.
One person who was working there, helped them to go outside.
MR BLACK: The David you are referring to, is that David Matsabula, who testified?
MR MASUPA: Yes, that is David.
MR BLACK: Did he work at the shop?
MR MASUPA: Yes, he was working at the shop.
MR BLACK: You managed to get these people out of the shop. Did you lock the doors, the shop doors?
MR MASUPA: After we took them outside, we were able to lock the burglar doors. We closed all the steel doors and at that time, they were talking but they were going away. When people are talking in a group and the person who said they will come back and burn the house, and those who were insulting, you will not be able to identify their voices who is speaking at that time, who says what and what.
MR BLACK: But you say you heard them, coming from them, distinctly saying that they will be coming back and they will burn the whole business down?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they said that they will come back and they will burn the whole shopping centre.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, during your criminal trial didn't you say that it was Mr Matsomai and Maqlanga who made such utterances about coming back to burn down the shop?
MR MASUPA: It might be them, because I was able to identify, I was trying to identify the voices of individual people, because all of them were six.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you are saying you might have been mistaken during the criminal trial, the evidence that you gave might have been untrue?
MR MASUPA: I would not say I was mistaken, there were no other people except the six of them.
MR BLACK: I think the passage referred to by the Commissioner appears on page 17, towards the bottom of the page.
JUDGE WILSON: Line 26?
MR BLACK: 26, yes. It says that it is Lazarus and number 5, who was Patrick, amongst other things said they will come back and all of you inside the shop, we will set the shop alight. Is that more or less what happened? Was there confusion?
MR MASUPA: You mean whilst they were still talking?
MR BLACK: Yes, while they were leaving and while you were getting them out of the shop they were saying amongst themselves they will come back and they will burn the shop down?
MR MASUPA: They said so that they will return and burn the shop.
MR BLACK: What effect did this have on you?
MR MASUPA: They didn't have a chance because I knew that
after we have closed, there are people who were on guard, there is security in the sjibeen on top who are always guarding the place.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now did they return after they had caused havoc amongst the customers and were sjamboking people and you got them out of the shopping complex? What I want to get at, you said at one stage that they were also expressing - you heard them saying that you think that you are better
than us. Is that so? What else did you hear them say, did they say that you think that you are better than us, you said something like that?
MR MASUPA: They were saying we are trying to make us better, we are trying to make ourselves better. They were passing derogatory statements. I was not sure as to whether they were insulting us for what because they came with the intention to fight us.
MR BLACK: When you say us, who are you talking about?
MR MASUPA: I mean us, we people who, I mean we the workers, or maybe the owner of the shop.
MR BLACK: When did they start insulting you, is this after you had told them to leave the shop because they were misbehaving?
MR MASUPA: After we took them outside, then they started insulting.
MR BLACK: Now, I just don't want to go into every detail again of your evidence which you testified, but the cause of you asking them to leave, was because I understand they were sjamboking people and they were causing havoc amongst the customers, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is true, because they started fighting with the customers. They just started attacking the
customers and hitting them with sjamboks. Then I was able to see that this people were coming to fight.
MR BLACK: Now how did you get them out of the shop?
MR MASUPA: I went outside the counter and I pleaded with them to leave. One of the workers pushed them outside the shop, then they said, now because you are fighting, therefor you have got to go outside.
MR BLACK: Who was that worker, was that David Matsabulah?
MR MASUPA: That is David, Sir.
MR BLACK: Okay. So you didn't have a whole lot of people helping you to push them out?
MR MASUPA: No, no Sir. People who were inside the shop were customers only and other people who were there were girls or ladies, who were helping us in the shop.
MR BLACK: Did you assault any of these six people, you or David? Were they hit by you people?
MR MASUPA: There was no one amongst them who was slapped or even us, they didn't insult us. Or they didn't assault us and we didn't assault them. There was no person who was fighting with them.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now after this incident and you got them out, they threatened to come back and burn the place down and they said that you had insulted them and you thought that you were better than them, did they ever come back to that shop that day?
MR MASUPA: They never came back. Because after about 10 minutes, I was sent to go fetch newspapers at a certain house. I drove to that house, when I came back I was told to go home because some of my grandfather's children had already gone home and I was told to go home, they will take care of the shop. And I left the shop in a hurry to go
home. On my arrival there were ambulances and fire brigade and people were all over the street.
I didn't understand what was happening because this whole issue that happened at the shop was already out of my mind, I never had anything of that kind in my mind. When I arrived at home, some of my family members were already in the ambulance and the police arrived and I left with them.
Mantha was laying on the lawn and she was telling us
who did this and she was also taken into the ambulance.
MR BLACK: The next day you also went back to your home, that was, when I say your home, we are referring to the home of your mother, is that correct?
MR MASUPA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Now, the next day you went back to your mother's home as well, is that so?
MR MASUPA: That is correct, Sir.
MR BLACK: What happened while you were at your mother's home?
MR MASUPA: A group of boys who work at the shop came to help us clean the house, take the damaged property outside and after a few minutes, the comrades arrived.
MR BLACK: How many comrades arrived?
MR MASUPA: I don't want to lie. I think every comrade around Daveyton was at home, they wanted to understand what was actually happening and as we were cleaning, we explained to them everything that happened and they said okay, we will go out ourselves and search for them.
We will assist the police because you have already reported the matter to the police. The police were told this incident on the same day. The comrades left then to go and look for these people.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you've been asked how many comrades arrived at your house and you said you think every comrade in Daveyton. We don't know how many comrades were in Daveyton, could you make an estimate? I know you didn't count them, could you tell it was more than 10, less than 10, more than 20 or more than 100 or less than 100?
MR MASUPA: I think there were more than 100, because I couldn't even count them.
MR BLACK: So Mr Masupa, the comrades who came there, after they had heard what had happened, said that they would go out and look for them. When you say them, who are you referring to? Are you referring to the people who burnt down your house?
MR MASUPA: Yes, they were going to look for the people who burnt down the house.
MR BLACK: Right, and what happened a bit later, after that?
MR MASUPA: While busy cleaning the house, after about three hours, they arrived. They had with them one of the perpetrators, Elias Ratone. They brought him home. On their arrival some of them, the comrades, said let us burn him, they said let us just burn him and some said, no, let us call the police.
Now, they were arguing and ultimately they agreed that the police should be called. Some of the comrades stayed behind with him and some went to fetch the police. And the police arrived. They took him with to the police station.
After quite some time, I think an hour if not two hours, I saw him coming back with the police and camera men, seemingly from the TV and he was demonstrating what he did. He went into the yard and he opened the metre box that is outside. This was a demonstration as to what he did while
others went into the house.
Now the police have the video. I was at home at that time, just watching not knowing what was happening.
MR BLACK: Did the comrades say anything to you about the other people that they were looking for?
MR MASUPA: After he was taken by the police, the comrades said we were looking for others, but seemingly they couldn't get all of them. Because I was now obliged to
sleep at home because everybody was now at the hospital. Now myself and my grandfather's son was supposed to sleep at home.
The comrades came almost every day giving us reports that they are busy with their search.
ADV DE JAGER: You are mentioning the comrades and you've mentioned there was about, say more than even - it could be more than 100, could you give us a few names of those people, those comrades and the comrades who visited you later?
MR MASUPA: People who came to visit us, I can mention people like George, Nelson, Aubrey, Skeher, these are the people who frequented our house just checking the situation and leaving thereafter.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you say Aubrey Skeher?
MR MASUPA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: What was the name, Aubrey who?
MR MASUPA: It is Aubrey Nqomalo.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
MR BLACK: And Skeher, is that another person?
MR MASUPA: Yes, Skeher is one of the comrades' leaders.
MR BLACK: Is he a leader amongst the comrades, or was he at that time?
MR MASUPA: He was the leader at that time together with Aubrey. Presently Aubrey is a member of the Civic Association. Skeher is also promoted to a higher position.
MR BLACK: This Mr Ndlovu, Phineas Ndlovu, did you know whether he was a member of comrades or not, had you had dealings with him?
MR MASUPA: According to my knowledge as I was also a student at that time, there were meetings that I attended
when I had time, but I don't recall seeing him in the company of the known comrades. His comradeship that he referred to is not what we knew, it was just a group of gangsters harassing people and disturbing meetings where issues were discussed.
Issues of the community. Himself as well as his members were not comrades. They used to follow the comrades, where the comrades were conducting operation clean up, they would also come and conduct their criminal activities. If he says he was a common tsotsi I would agree with that, not a comrade.
ADV DE JAGER: And Lazarus, was he a comrade?
MR MASUPA: Lazarus was a comrade before. That is when he was still at school and he crossed the line, I don't know what happened. Maybe he was not interested in politics any more, he didn't even attend meetings.
He was never seen in the company of comrades any more.
ADV DE JAGER: At these meetings, you say they didn't attend the meetings. Who addressed these meetings?
MR MASUPA: Skeher, Aubrey and them were addressing the meetings.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you said Skeher, Aubrey and who?
MR MASUPA: Skeher, Aubrey, George were addressing the
meetings. It depended on the school, it varied from school to school. They were addressing different schools.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you a comrade personally, Mr Masupa?
MR MASUPA: I was once a comrade. Even if I wasn't a full time comrade, but I attended the meetings when I had time.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now, how did one become a comrade? I think this is what the community would like to get clarification
on, we are a little confused right now about what really qualified one to be a comrade?
MR MASUPA: Let me start by telling you my involvement in comrade activities. It was when the age limit was introduced in schools, it was at that time when they said when you are this old, and you fail, you won't be in a position to continue schooling, that was the first issue that Aubrey and them addressed.
Then we attended those meetings then to fight against that, the implementation of that Law. Then the comrades, the people came together to be comrades to fight for their rights.
MS KHAMPEPE: So people who were not scholars at that time, could not become comrades?
MR MASUPA: There were people who were not schooling, but they were accepted to be comrades. Because they were not schooling, they were in a position to attend meetings as others were in classes. ... (tape ends)
ADV DE JAGER: ... shop, and if you come back and assault further people, I will tell the police?
MR MASUPA: How would I inform the police, I could have informed the policemen the minute they started this trouble in the shop. I just gave them their money.
MR BLACK: Now there is also, okay. Right, when these people left the shop, Mr Masupa, when these people left the shop, were they angry? Were they angry at you?
MR MASUPA: I believe they were angry with me because I gave them back their money, I didn't give them what they wanted.
MR BLACK: And you told them to get out of the shop because they are disturbing the peace, is that ...
MR MASUPA: That is correct, I told them to leave the shop.
MR BLACK: Now I want to know Mr Ndlovu comes along and he makes allegations against you that you've got gangsters, that you are assisted by gangsters at the shop?
MR MASUPA: Since long ago in the townships, there have been gangsters. He is referring to an incident of the 1970's. The people he referred to were long in jail. He referred to the gangsters and we were still very young when those gangsters existed.
MR BLACK: Will you listen to what I say Mr Masupa. We will come to that. What I said, you weren't present perhaps at most of the evidence given by Mr Ndlovu unfortunately, amongst other allegations he made against you was that at that shop you had gangsters who assisted you and helped you against the comrades. Is that so or is that not so? Did you have gangsters helping you?
MR MASUPA: To be honest, who am I to be against the comrades because I was one of them. I was a school kid, I was part of the comrade, how would I be against them?
JUDGE WILSON: The important part of the question which has been put to you twice now, was did you have gangsters in that shop who assisted you?
MR MASUPA: I never had a gang at the shop. We only have people who assisted in the shop.
MR BLACK: Now these people who assisted in the shop, what were they? Were they shop assistants and you had security people?
MR MASUPA: They were workers at the shop, and there were two security guards and they only worked at night. Nobody else supplied security.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you ever brought before the people's court?
MR MASUPA: I was surprised to hear that I was taken to a people's court, I do not know such a court. I did not even remember its existence.
JUDGE WILSON: So you were never before one?
MR MASUPA: No Sir, I was never taken before the people's court.
MR BLACK: Were you ever disciplined by the comrades?
MR MASUPA: I was never punished at all. I knew comrades and they knew me and even today they will tell you I never have trouble with anyone.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now the impression which Mr Ndlovu tried to create is that you were against the community, you and your family were against the community. And one of the allegations he has made is that he tries to say that during consumer boycotts when delivery trucks came to the shopping complex to deliver goods, you and your gang as he calls it, had problems with the comrades who wanted to prevent the deliveries. Now just before you start, listen to what I am saying, that is the evidence which he gave in summary.
Now, during a consumer boycott what happened to delivery trucks?
MR MASUPA: I want to tell the truth now. I didn't have any authority, sometimes I would be walking in the street or I am at school and there will be disruptions. You know when I come across a group of people taking some food from a delivery van, I would just take something also. I didn't have anything - how would I be against the comrades, how would I be against the consumer boycott because I was also a comrade.
When a truck was burning, I would also take a loaf of bread and pass by. I didn't have a gang. The trucks couldn't get into the township any more, they parked at the police station and various businessmen will drive to the police station to collect the foodstuff.
I was part of the comrade, how would I be against the consumer boycott?
MR BLACK: Now will you listen to my question again, which I am putting to you? It was alleged that when the trucks came to deliver goods at that shopping complex where you worked, your grandfather's shopping complex, you had a gang that made sure that the comrades would not disturb the delivery of the goods, is that the case or is it not the case?
MR MASUPA: That is not the case. That is not the case. How would the vans, the delivery vans come to the township because they were stoned and burnt?
MR BLACK: Yes, don't ask the questions.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I think he's answered the question. He said he didn't have a gang assisting or deliveries or operating at the shop.
MR BLACK: Now, you were the name, now we will come back to this business of you being associated with gangsters, okay. And listen again please to the question. It was put and you
were present at the time when Mr Ndlovu was testifying, I put it to him that the comrades actually helped hunt him down, not him down, but hunt down the people who had burnt the house, do you remember me putting that to him? Do you remember me putting that to him?
MR MASUPA: I remember.
MR BLACK: And when it was put to him about Elias Ratone being brought to your house, he went off and he gave a long
story and amongst others he said some of the comrades were corrupt and he said some of the comrades would be helped by a gangster who stayed at the shopping complex. Do you remember that? Do you remember him saying that?
MR MASUPA: Yes. I remember.
MR BLACK: Okay, and he then goes further and he said in response to a question give names of the gangsters and he mention, he said a gangster by the name of Bambo Splash, was helping you. Do you remember that?
MR MASUPA: I remember him saying that.
MR BLACK: Now can you please just comment on this aspect? Can you just tell us who is this Bambo Splash and was it true or was it not true or what?
MR MASUPA: Let me explain this. Bambo Splash was a gang that used to buy at the shop. At that time of the incident, we were, I think we were very small when the gangsters erupted. It was a group belonging to a certain section of the township, fighting a certain part of the township. This is a long tradition.
When the shop was burnt, I think members of that gang were already ten years in jail, they are much older than us. I mean he is surprising to come and refer to Bambo Splash, a very old gang and it was just a talk around the township
that be careful, you will meet the Bambo Splash gang at the shop.
MR BLACK: Yes, now, let's just, I don't know if there was a mix up in the translation. At the time of the burning, did you say, of the house or the shop, these people had already been in prison for over ten years?
MR MASUPA: That is when the house was burnt. These people had been in jail for ten years. I wanted to explain
that these people were long in jail. They did not, they were not involved at all at the time of the incident.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, was Bambo Splash in existence in 1987? Were they in existence as a gang in 1987?
MR MASUPA: It existed in the 1970's.
JUDGE WILSON: Please try to answer the questions. You've gone invariably gone off at a tangent, the question simply was did they exist in 1987?
MR MASUPA: No, they did not exist.
MR BLACK: Some of the other allegations that were made against you by Mr Ndlovu was that your people at the shop used to disarm people and then give arms, firearms to gangsters. Did anything like that happen while you were working at the shopping complex?
MR MASUPA: Let me explain this this way. There were security guards, two of them at the gate and they were searching you, you wouldn't get inside with a gun. They just searched you and when you had a weapon on you, they would return you. They were at the door to search people not to come in with weapons.
MR BLACK: So is your answer then that you did not disarm people and take the weapons and give them, the firearms to other people? You did not take the weapons from these
people, you just prevented people from entering the sjibeen or the shopping complex?
MR MASUPA: That is correct. The two people were hired to stop the people from entering the shebeen with guns.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you now say the shebeen, are we now talking about the shebeen and not the shop?
MR MASUPA: Sir, the ground floor was the shop and the first floor was the shebeen. Maybe he is mixing the issues
that there were security at the shop, I do not understand. Maybe he mixed up issues here. You will never get into a shop and be searched, you get into a shop to buy food, you don't get security at a shop.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Masupa, were there two security guards posted at the entrance of the tavern?
MR MASUPA: Yes, we didn't have security at the shop we had the security at the shebeen.
MR BLACK: But the point is, listen Mr Masupa, will you listen to this please, these security people, did they take, remove the firearm from these people who had guns and then give them to other people? Did that happen or were the people who ...
ADV DE JAGER: Did they return the weapons after the people left the shebeen, did they give them back their weapons or did they keep it and give it to somebody different?
MR MASUPA: When you were armed, you were not allowed to get in. You were just not allowed to get in.
JUDGE WILSON: So they didn't take the weapons away from people?
MR MASUPA: Not at all Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, how much longer are you going to be?
MR BLACK: Not much longer.
JUDGE WILSON: Because I understood there was an agreement with Mr Currin that he was not available after the morning session?
MR BLACK: Yes, I am about to wind up Mr Chairman. You understand that you may be given further opportunity to answer any further questions at a later stage? I just want to put it to you the allegations by the community that you
were either seen to be against the community, that you deny, is that correct? Is that correct or not?
MR MASUPA: I am against that.
JUDGE WILSON: He has already denied that, he has told us he was a comrade.
MR BLACK: Fine. So at this stage, are there any further comments that you want to make on the evidence of Mr Ndlovu about allegations made against you?
MR MASUPA: Yes Sir.
MR BLACK: Please make them.
MR MASUPA: After I've known him, we never entered a conflict or exchanged words. Even those who came with him, because all of them were my neighbours. I would like to ask Mr Ndlovu to explain that who sent them to burn, to come and burn at my mother's place. He must tell us what did they want from me. I was never in his company anywhere except Lazzie. All of them were not my friends, my friend was Lazarus. They should tell this Commission what did they want from me and who sent them to go and burn my mother's place because all what he has said so far, is not true. If he wants forgiveness he must tell the truth, he must leave things which has happened long ago, which we were not involved in them.
MR BLACK: Are you in favour of amnesty being granted to Mr Ndlovu? The question is ...
JUDGE WILSON: Is that relevant?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black it is for us to decide on the evidence whether there should be amnesty. Whether the witness would be in favour of amnesty or against amnesty, we've got to look at the law and whether it complies with the Act that we should decide whether he should get amnesty.
MR BLACK: As the Commission pleases. I have nothing further to put to the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, have you got any clarification?
MR CURRIN: I have no questions for clarification.
NO EXAMINATIN BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE WILSON: Do you want to ask anything?
MS KHAMPEPE: No.
JUDGE WILSON: You may go.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE WILSON: I understand that the proposal is we should now adjourn this hearing to a date to be arranged and to enable the parties to make further enquiries and if necessary to lead further evidence. Is that so?
MR BLACK: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, I would now direct on behalf of the Committee, Mr Black, that you should in consultation with Mr Currin, give us as soon as possible please, detailed information as to precisely what, how the other five people who were there that day, have been dealt with.
That is as to whether they were given general amnesty, whether they were given specific indemnity, whether they have served their sentences and if necessary, we would like
proof of what has happened to them.
The second matter is we request you to subpoena this man, Aubrey, I think we've now got his surname, Nqomalo, to give evidence at the next hearing.
And the third is that we would ask you to direct the investigative unit to make enquiries at the school as to the school record of the applicant. And to obtain, if necessary copies, if possible, copies of his school reports.
There is nothing any other parties want directed for the next hearing, is there?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, just one thing. The other matter that was set down was the matter of Wilson Sebiloane. I just think that we need to at least note that it should have been dealt with and that it is going to be postponed. The applicant has been here for the last day and a half, expecting his matter to be dealt with, although he was told that the policemen had not been contacted and I would like to record that Mr Black and I will get together and try and arrange a date as soon as possible, even if it means that I have to travel to Mpumalanga, wherever you may be, because the applicant obviously anticipated that his matter would be dealt with and it is clearly distressing to an applicant who is in prison, to have his matter postponed indefinitely.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, I think I should perhaps indicate for any interested parties the reason why we cannot proceed with this matter is that one of the victims, one of the two policemen, or the only surviving victim, has not been given notice of the hearing, as he is entitled to and as the Appellate Division has said, should be done.
There was apparently some difficulty in tracing him, although it appears he is still a member of the South
African Police Force and the last we were told was that they had now reduced it to a possible of two policemen.
I would request that contact be made with him as soon as possible, that he be informed of the position of his rights as to whether he wishes to attend the hearing, whether he wishes to make representations and it may be that he would like to give evidence as to what in fact transpired on that day and I think that is a matter that should be investigated as soon as possible.
Once that has been done, and once it is certain that we can give him proper notice and that he will also be able to attend the hearing, I agree to Mr Currin's request that arrangements should then be made to have a hearing as soon as possible. It is not part-heard before the present Committees, so it can be set down at any other sitting where the parties can make themselves available.
I direct that that be done.
MR CURRIN: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: The matter is accordingly adjourned to a date, or not adjourned, I think just removed from our roll with the direction that it be set down for hearing as soon as it is possible.
MR CURRIN: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you and I would like to thank everybody who has assisted us here over the last few days. Particularly the people who are usually forgotten, sitting as they do in little boxes at the end of the room and who are the only people who have to work the whole time, thank you all. We will now adjourn.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
