MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, we are proceeding effectively I understand from the legal representative acting for Mr C. Nkuna in application number 0826/96. The victims in this instance have been notified and are represented by Adv Patel and one of the implicated parties, Mr Skosana, his legal representative has been notified as well and arrangements have been made for him to attend the hearing.
Apart from that Mr Chairman, I understand that a written statement has been prepared by the representative of Mr C. Nkuna and perhaps he could confirm whether we are confirming with C. Nkuna or if he still has to conclude anything relating to Mr J.H. Nkuna. Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV TEE: Mr Chairman, we are going to commence at the moment with the application of Conrad Nkuna and we intend to lead his evidence. He has prepared a written statement which was handed up, which he will read in English and thereafter he will put on the headphones and answer questions in Seswati. If we may then have the witness sworn in.
CONRAD NKUNA: (sworn states)
CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR NKUNA: I, the undersigned Conrad Nkuna, do hereby make an oath and state I am the applicant herein. I am currently serving an effective seven years imprisonment at Barberton prison.
At my trial in the regional court, I was sentenced to five years imprisonment on six counts of attempted murder and a further effective five years, on five counts relating to possession of arms, explosives and ammunition.
My effective sentence is seven years imprisonment".
ADV TEE: Can you hear me on this one, but the sound is not good? Can you hear me now, much better?
CHAIRMAN: And please don't read very fast.
MR NKUNA: "All these charges relate to an attack on the house of Mr Johannes Shabangu, that took place on the 10th of November, 1992 and in which I was involved.
I am the younger brother Joseph Harold Nkuna, whose testimony this Committee has heard, and who is some ten years older than me. My family circumstances are as those set out in his statement to the Committee. At the time I committed these offences in respect of which I seek amnesty, I was 17 years old and a student at the Tembekha High School in Ganyamizani.
As a teenager, I idolized my brother who was a role model to me and my family. I became involved in the politics of liberation in 1988 when I was in standard 6 and living in Swalalha.
I was an active participant in youth and civil structures in my home area. I was strongly influenced by the cadres of Umkonto We Sizwe, whom my brother brought to my sister's home, where I lived. These MK cadres whom I regarded as heroes, showed me how to use light weapons and taught me much about their struggle.
In 1991 I moved to Gwayamazan to live with my brother. I was in standard 9 at that time and at his house too, I met many MK cadres whom he was assisting. I got involved in providing support to MK cadres by transporting them to and from safe houses.
Helping them fetch and hide weapons (indistinct) boxes and generally provide them with the support they needed. Although I knew how to use weapons, I was never a formally trained soldier. I was however a member of the ANC Youth League.
The attack on my brother was traumatic both for myself and my family, particularly as we had lost a sister some six months earlier, who had died at a mysterious fire at her home at Giyani. At the time of my sister's death, we suspected foul play. She was the pillar of our family and did a great deal to support us.
We suspected that the police were involved in an arson attack upon her and that it was done to hurt Joe and his family. I believe as did my family and those comrades with whom the matter was discussed, that attack on Joe was orchestrated by members of the Security Forces who had recruited members of the ANC for this purpose.
My brother was a great leader of the ANC, a stalwart of the struggle and somebody whose death would be a huge blow to the movement in this area. There was little doubt in my mind that the agent responsible for the murderous attack on him, will try again and that if they succeeded, that will be disaster, not only for myself and my family, but also for the movement as a whole.
When Soli Morapi and Derick Skosana arrived at my brother's home with information regarding the identity of the agent, who had ordered the attack on my brother, I was quite willing to participate in their plan to kill this person.
I went willingly with the two MK cadres to carry out the attack. My role was however, not as an attacker, but fundamentally as a guide to point out to the two cadres the house and the room in which Mr Shabangu slept.
During the attack however, I was armed with an AK47 rifle which (indistinct). It was given to me by Soli and I returned it to him immediately after the attack. Only two grenades were thrown during the attack and no shots were fired.
One of the grenades went into the room, the other exploded outside. I truly believed that Mr Shabangu was the only occupant of the room and I was not aware that Mrs Nolene Lingwale was present. I certainly had no intention to harm or injure any other occupant of the house. I do appreciate however, with hindsight the possibility that they may have been injured or killeD.
After the attack, we fled on foot to a safe house near (indistinct) and a day later, left for Swalalha. Soli left a briefcase in my room containing a handgrenade and 20 rounds of ammunition. The briefcase was mine. When he left it, I believed he left it there by mistake. We were arrested at the house in Swalalha a short while later.
The raid came as a complete surprise to us and no resistance was put up. Soli was shot dead by Major Van Zyl, notwithstanding the fact that he was armed. His personal firearm was under the mattress at that time.
I have little doubt that he was killed deliberately. I participated in the attack in the absolute confidence and belief that I was doing the right thing. I was accompanied by two experienced soldiers and the attack was planned with their council and that of my brother who was a senior MK Commander.
At no time did I doubt that it was a legitimate attack on an enemy agent and I had a bona fide believe that it was a furtherance of the struggle in which the ANC was engaged.
There can be no doubt in the fact that the victim of our attack was believed to me to have orchestrated the attack on my brother, made me susceptible to participate. I will not however, acted as I did if I had not believed that the attack on my brother was a political motivated attack and an attack on the ANC as a whole.
Emotions such as revenge, malice and spite are not known in my family. The values that we were taught as children are those of caring and tolerance. I did not act out of a test for revenge. I associated myself with the statement of my brother and in particular his express desire to be forgiven and to effect reconciliation.
In all the circumstances, I pray that this Honourable Committee grants me amnesty".
I thank you.
ADV TEE: Mr Nkuna, When Soli Morapi was shot dead, was he armed or unarmed?
MR NKUNA: At the time he was not armed.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRMAN: Shall we then admit this affidavit as Exhibit B, the other one was Exhibit A, wasn't it, so this will be Exhibit B. Thank you.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
ADV TEE: May I just enquire Mr Chairman, does the Commission have a copy of the document just read by Mr Nkuna? Thank you. I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN: If you could have an extra copy, that would help. We do have copies, but we have given them to the interpreters to help them to make their task easy.
ADV TEE: Mr Chairman, I have an extra copy available, but both of the copies that I have, are unsigned. I don't know if they ever have been signed before Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN: Are you through Mr Tee?
ADV TEE: Mr Chairman, I have three more questions.
CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.
ADV TEE: Mr Nkuna, when you were first arrested, you were taken to a police station at Hazyview, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: And at that police station, you saw two people who had come to get you released, who were they?
MR NKUNA: It was my brother Joe Nkuna and Pat Mashiani who was working with him in the office.
ADV TEE: Does that mean that at that time your brother was back as a full time member of the African National Congress?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: In terms of the difference between the African National Congress and MK, does the political aspect of the ANC control MK or is MK separate?
MR NKUNA: According to my knowledge, they were two different things. One was operating independently from the other.
ADV TEE: And according to your knowledge the South African Communist Party, did that in any way have any control over MK or the African National Congress?
MR NKUNA: I think it was independent as well, operating independently from these others.
ADV TEE: On the night of this incident of the attack on Mr Shabangu's house, how did you get to his house?
MR NKUNA: We walked to his house.
ADV TEE: How many were you when you walked to his house?
MR NKUNA: We were three of us.
ADV TEE: The attack took place in November of 1992, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: At that stage, was your brother Joseph Nkuna in a position to be able to run?
MR NKUNA: Not in a position to run, he was experiencing problems in walking.
ADV TEE: Did your brother go with you to the house of Mr Shabangu on the night of the attack?
MR NKUNA: No.
ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel?
ADV PATEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkuna, ...
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone is not on. No, it is not on, I can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Patel.
ADV PATEL: Hopefully this time the interpreters will hear me. Can you hear me?
INTERPRETER: Yes, I can hear you, thank you.
ADV PATEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkuna, earlier you said that your brother Joe could not walk to the house, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: I did not say that. What I said is that he had difficulties even walking.
ADV PATEL: At any stage, did he come to Mr Shabangu's house before the attack?
MR NKUNA: Before I used to go quite often.
ADV PATEL: On the day of the attack, did Joe come to Mr Shabangu's house?
MR NKUNA: No.
ADV PATEL: After the attack, did Joe come to Mr Shabangu's house?
MR NKUNA: Yes, at night when he got the telephone call, the message that there was an attack, then he went. He was fetched, still.
ADV PATEL: Who fetched him?
MR NKUNA: It was Dr Mamwepe.
ADV PATEL: Let's turn to the moments or the day before the attack. On that day, did you go to Mr Shabangu's house?
MR NKUNA: No, I did not go.
ADV PATEL: Do you know a Mr Derrick Manjisi? Do you know a Mr Derrick Manjisi?
MR NKUNA: Yes, I do know him.
ADV PATEL: Who is he?
MR NKUNA: I know him as a person who used to be a soldier of MK and coming from exile.
ADV PATEL: On the day before the attack, did Derrick Manjisi and three others, including yourself, go to Mr Shabangu's house, armed?
MR NKUNA: No, we never did that.
ADV PATEL: I want to now turn to your application form which you've completed. Do you recall that you have completed an application for amnesty on the 24th of April 1996?
MR NKUNA: I do remember.
ADV PATEL: And this application form is a sworn statement under oath before a Commissioner of Oaths, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: And you acknowledge that the contents thereof were true and correct?
MR NKUNA: I will say so. I will say so as I have filled the application form and also acknowledge that that is the truth.
ADV PATEL: Now, against whom was the attack directed on the night of 9 November 1992?
MR NKUNA: Mr Johannes Mandla Shabangu.
ADV PATEL: Was the attack only against Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: On page 9, well I have the numbered page, are your pages numbered as well? On page 9 you say the attack was directed against our opponent who at that stage was single and living alone. Was that Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: Why was Mr Shabangu regarded ...
MS KHAMPEPE: I am sorry Mr Patel, are you on page 9 because I can't find what you are referring the applicant to. My page 9 doesn't have what you've just put to the witness.
ADV PATEL: Page 8 is the first page of the form and that is the paginated pages as I have them and page 9 is the second page and I am looking at the very top, which is IV. Do you have it?
MS KHAMPEPE: So the attack that you've just made reference to must be on page 8 and not page 9?
ADV PATEL: It is section 9, section (f) of the bundle. Madam, have you located it, it is section (f) of the bundle and it is ...
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you I think I was in section (a) of the bundle.
ADV PATEL: I should have alerted you to that earlier. Why was Mr Shabangu regarded as an opponent?
MR NKUNA: He was regarded as a traitor and also a sellout and working hand in hand with the policemen.
ADV PATEL: Who gave you that information that he was a sellout and working hand in hand with the police?
MR NKUNA: Derick Skosana and Soli Morapi gave me that information.
ADV PATEL: Was this information given to you personally? Was this information given to you personally by Derick?
MR NKUNA: Yes, we were talking with both of them and then they made mention of that kind of information.
ADV PATEL: Did you ask where they got that information from?
MR NKUNA: I never asked them.
ADV PATEL: Was Mr Shabangu a member of the ANC?
MR NKUNA: All that I know was that he was working for the ANC office.
ADV PATEL: Was he the regional Treasurer of the ANC in the Province?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: When the information was given by Derick and Soli that he was working for the police and that he was a traitor, did you check that information with the ANC Head Quarters?
MR NKUNA: No, I did not because I couldn't do that.
ADV PATEL: What were your reasons for not doing it?
MR NKUNA: I was only a Youth League member, I had no authority or powers vested in me to investigate my seniors. And it was also not so much of my prerogative to do that.
ADV PATEL: Was Mr Shabangu a senior in the ANC ranks in the Province?
MR NKUNA: By virtue of his position as a Treasurer, ... Tape ends) ... certain about that.
ADV PATEL: ... of the ANC in the Province and you had two comrades, Soli and Derick who has just given you information that a senior member of the Provincial ANC was a sellout and working for the police. Did you take this information up with any of the other senior officials of the ANC in the Province?
MR NKUNA: I did not. I just took it as a conversation, that they were just telling me that and I thought they got that information from the seniors of the ANC anyway.
ADV PATEL: You thought they got the information from the seniors - did you ask Soli and Derick where they got that information from?
MR NKUNA: I did not ask them. I just took it for granted, because they were seniors, so I took it for granted that they got that information from other seniors in the ANC.
ADV PATEL: On page 9 (iv), you say the attack was directed against our opponent, you used the word "our", who do you mean the "our" was, that would be more than one person besides yourself, who were the other person or persons with you?
MR NKUNA: As I was an ANC Youth League member, if one is a traitor, you conclude that he is an enemy of the whole organisation. I referred to the organisation as I said "our".
ADV PATEL: Why did you not say the attack was directed against an ANC member who was a traitor and why did you use the word "our"?
MR NKUNA: I said that because I believed that the person who was a traitor, is not an ANC member. He is fighting against the ANC organisation.
ADV PATEL: Let's on the same page, let's turn to paragraph 10 (a). You say ...
CHAIRMAN: Sorry, before you leave that, what do you mean by "opponent"?
MR NKUNA: We meant people who were opposing the ANC.
CHAIRMAN: But a person who opposes the ANC is not necessarily an agent or an informer or a sellout? You may be an opponent of the ANC without being a sellout or in informer, isn't it?
MR NKUNA: It might be so, but I had no knowledge of the definition of opponent, that it could be taken to such great lengths. I used opponent as I understood it to mean opposing and fighting against.
CHAIRMAN: Why didn't you just simply say well, the attack was directed against an informer or a sellout? That would have left no vagueness about the description of the person.
MR NKUNA: As I've already said, the word opponent, I had no knowledge of its definition and that it may cause this confusion. I had no intense knowledge of the fact that being an opponent, I thought you are a traitor, still it could mean that.
ADV PATEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Patel, may I just interpose. In your own understanding Mr Nkuna, how did you regard people who were collaborating with the State? Did you not regard them as an opponent of the ANC?
MR NKUNA: People who worked with the State, at the time collaborating with them, I looked at them as ANC opponents.
ADV PATEL: At the time, people were negotiating with the Nationalist Party and who were collaborating with the Government of the time in finding a solution, would you have regarded them also as opponents?
ADV TEE: I object. Mr Chairman, any member of the African National Congress who was engaged in discussions with the National Party during the pre-election stage, can never said to be collaborating with the National Party. Collaboration in English means where you are by definition operating as a traitor to your organisation.
It cannot be said that any member of the African National Congress who with the due and proper mandate, was engaged in talks with the National Party, was a collaborator. No ANC members were collaborating, they were engaged in negotiations.
If my learned friend can just rephrase the question.
ADV PATEL: Mr Chairman, my learned friend is giving a definition to the word collaboration in a very specific context. People who worked with the Nationalist Government or the State in 1992, were they collaborating with the Government?
MR NKUNA: I would say they were trying to reach a certain settlement in working together, so they may reach to a conclusive settlement. I wouldn't say they were working for whom, but I will say that they were working together.
ADV PATEL: Would you agree with me that there were certain people within the ANC who were unhappy with members of the ANC working together with the Government in finding a solution?
MR NKUNA: Yes, that is correct.
ADV PATEL: Would you have regarded those persons as opponents of the ANC?
MR NKUNA: No.
ADV PATEL: You said the attack was directed against our opponent, right. We know that the opponent was Mr Johannes Shabangu. Did you know that attacking a person with the intent to kill, is a criminal conduct?
MR NKUNA: I knew that that was criminal for that, but if that person was also a danger and pose some kind of danger to you politically, you had to take an action.
ADV PATEL: How did you know that Mr Shabangu posed as a danger?
MR NKUNA: From the information that I had already gathered, or information given by Soli. From the information that I was already given by Soli.
I started there to suspect him as a traitor or an informer.
ADV PATEL: And simply because you suspected Mr Shabangu to be an informer or a traitor, therefor he had to be attacked?
MR NKUNA: It is not me who said he shall be attacked, but Soli suggested it because they were at Joe's house and they were there to see that that kind of an operation is being undertaken to attack an informer or a traitor.
ADV PATEL: What was Soli's rank within the ANC?
MR NKUNA: I wouldn't say he held some kind of position, but I would say he was an MK member.
ADV PATEL: Was he a junior MK member or high up in the command structure of the MK?
MR NKUNA: According to my knowledge, he was in the junior ranks.
ADV PATEL: And here is a junior member of the MK who simply informs you that Mr Shabangu is suspected as a sellout, an informer and you are ready to go and attack him?
MR NKUNA: They told me that they were up to a mission of attacking the traitors, it was not me who decided that he should be attacked. We were talking and they told me why they were there, the mission that they had to accomplish.
ADV PATEL: Your brother, Mr Joe Nkuna, was the Provincial General Secretary of the ANC, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: Did you verify the information that you received from Soli and Derick with your brother?
MR NKUNA: After that we discussed that in his presence, and he agreed to what they were saying as well and said it is true, it is like that.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Patel, is it accepted then by you that at that stage his brother was a Provincial Secretary?
ADV PATEL: It is a confusion here because at that time, he could have been suspended or expelled and I think we went through that dilemma last time and that emerges primarily from the magistrate's judgement.
ADV DE JAGER: Now you are putting it to him that his brother was in fact the Provincial Secretary?
ADV PATEL: Let me put it as a former Provincial Secretary who was suspended or as a Secretary who was suspended or expelled, let me clarify that. May I proceed?
Do you know whether your brother worked with Mr Shabangu in the ANC structures?
MR NKUNA: That I know.
ADV PATEL: Were they close at any time together, do you know that?
MR NKUNA: I may say that, that they were close, but as to how close, I can't say because he used to come quite often at our house to see Joe.
CHAIRMAN: Can I just interrupt. Earlier on - just note that point, you will come back to it, but earlier, at the beginning, Mr Black mention was made of Mr Mojapelo in some context in these proceedings. I notice that he is here and I wish we could be informed as to whether he is here in the capacity that you indicated that he might be here for the purpose of record.
MR BLACK: May I just confirm that. I didn't know that he had arrived, but I had been informed that he was on his way, thank you. Mr Chairman, I have conferred with Mr Mojapelo, he essentially was concerned to hear the evidence in chief of Mr Nkuna, comrade Nkuna, he has a statement of comrade Nkuna and confirmed that he hasn't materially diverted from the statement.
Mr Mojapelo confirms that he is actually representing Mr Skosana who is in these present proceedings an implicated party. But Mr Skosana's application is before the Committee, application for amnesty that is and Mr Mojapelo asked if he personally need not attend throughout the hearing of Mr Conrad Nkuna, in order to enable him to finalise the preparations for the application for Mr Skosana which we hope to present to the Committee this afternoon and he has assured me that he does not feel the necessity at this stage to ask permission from the Committee to cross-examine Mr Conrad Nkuna as he is an implicated party and he is in possession of all the evidence to date.
CHAIRMAN: We have no problems that he can be excused. Did you take the liberty to indicate to or find out from Mr Mojapelo whether in the event of us finishing with Mr Nkuna's application today, we could move?
ADV PATEL: Mr Conrad Nkuna, let's continue, on this application form, paragraph C (ii), you say the occupation of the victim - ex-Regional Treasurer. Why do you say "ex"?
MR NKUNA: Because at the time of this event, he was a Regional Treasurer and when I was filling this application, it was 1996 under the new Government and I didn't know his position, his current position, this is why I wrote like that.
ADV PATEL: Now what as the objective of the attack on Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: The objective was to eliminate people who were posing danger over the ANC members since after a few years my brother who was also a senior member of the ANC was attacked.
ADV PATEL: In this particular instance, the attack against Mr Shabangu and the real reasons for that attack, was it not because there was a fight and your Commander, that is your brother Joe Nkuna, who was attacked initially and you were in fact taking revenge?
MR NKUNA: That was not revenge. I took it that if I had to assist in such an event, I could and I would. It was not because of the fact that it was my brother who was attacked prior to this, I was just helping as an ANC.
ADV PATEL: You were just helping as an ANC member to eliminate persons who were opposing the ANC, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct. If a request like that was uttered to me, I will take that to heart and act upon it.
ADV PATEL: How many attacks have you conducted to ensure that sellouts, informers should have been eliminated?
MR NKUNA: This was the first attack.
ADV PATEL: Now, in this application you say there was a fight and our Commander, Joseph Harold Nkuna was the first to be attacked and nearly killed.
Do you read that in your statement? Paragraph 10 (a)?
MR NKUNA: I see that.
ADV PATEL: Do you see that? Now could you just tell the Committee a little bit more about this fight that you have noted here?
MR NKUNA: This emanated from Joe Nkuna's attack within the ANC's organisation.
ADV PATEL: So the fight emanated within the ANC structure in the Province, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: May you please repeat your question?
ADV PATEL: The fight emanated within the structures of the ANC in this Province, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: I do not say that it emanated from the ANC but it emanated between the ANC and the State agents.
ADV PATEL: Was it not a fight between two groups within the ANC?
MR NKUNA: I may so we were two groups, one within ANC but working for the Government of the day.
ADV PATEL: And the other?
MR NKUNA: That was the ANC and they were collaborating with the then Government.
ADV PATEL: And that was simply based on suspicion?
MR NKUNA: That was not based on suspicion as such, because the two MK members were saying that it has been discovered that the person whose house has to be attacked, is an agent.
ADV PATEL: Now it was decided to eliminate Mr Shabangu, because he was suspected as an agent? Is that correct?
MR NKUNA: Those people were there for that mission, they were just notifying me. It was not decided there, they had already decided by the time they approached me.
MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry, may I just interrupt you Mr Patel. I don't know whether the translation is correct. I just want to find out from Mr Nkuna if he really means approach in the sense of approaching or just a discussion or information, the exchange of information when he makes reference to the approach which he got from the two cadres.
Does he mean an exchange of information or the approach as we are getting from the translators?
MR NKUNA: We were discussing and they told me that information.
ADV PATEL: Any persons who sided with Mr Shabangu, would they also be regarded as persons to be eliminated?
MR NKUNA: If it was discovered also that that person was collaborating with the police, yes, we would have been against him as well.
CHAIRMAN: I think this would be a convenient point for an adjournment.
ADV PATEL: Mr Chairman, after my next question. Would that have included Mr Shabangu's girlfriend who also needed to be eliminated?
MR NKUNA: No, it had nothing to do with her. I did not even know her, she was not even working for the ANC, we did not know her.
ADV PATEL: We can take the adjournment now, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR 15 MINUTES - ON RESUMPTION: .
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel?
ADV PATEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Let's just turn to the attack on your brother. By whom was your brother attacked?
ADV PATEL
MR NKUNA: I don't know even to date.
ADV PATEL: Now, in your application you say your brother was nearly killed by hired assassins on the 3rd of October 1991. Is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: How do you know that the persons who attacked your brother were hired assassins?
MR NKUNA: The way he was attacked, I believed that those people were trained. I believe that those people, if those people were trained, he would have survived the attack.
MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry Mr Patel, I don't think I have actually got his response. If he can just repeat his response to your question.
INTERPRETER: Yes, the speaker was not coherent?
MR NKUNA: The people who attacked him, and the way the whole thing took place, we believe that if they were trained, he would have not survived the attack.
ADV PATEL: Now where did you get this information "by hired assassins"?
MR NKUNA: That they were hired, the person who knows you, will never attack you because he runs a risk of being discovered.
ADV PATEL: On what basis do you say that the persons were hired. Hired means somebody who was paid?
MR NKUNA: At the time people who were being killed, it was usual that people will be hired from liberation movement at the State, they were not carrying on the operations, because they were known, but they would hire people to carry out the operation.
ADV PATEL: And you also say that we received information that Johannes, the victim we attacked, was involved in the attempt to kill our comrade and that comrade is Joe. Where did you get that information that Johannes Shabangu was involved?
MR NKUNA: May you please repeat your question?
ADV PATEL: Where did you get the information that Johannes Shabangu was involved in the attack on your brother?
MR NKUNA: I got that information from Soli and Derick.
ADV PATEL: When was that?
MR NKUNA: That was October 1992.
ADV PATEL: And then you go on to say we also heard that he was involved in removing the clues of that attack. Where did you get that information that Johannes was involved in removing the clues?
MR NKUNA: I heard that from Soli and also when Joe was being attacked, there was no clue because the car was taken, even the police when they got there, they found out that the car was already cleaned up.
ADV PATEL: And you also said that by that time the ANC in the Region was divided into two factions. On what basis do you make that statement?
MR NKUNA: I say that because the majority of the comrades wanted to know as to who undertook that action.
ADV PATEL: Who or which were the two factions within the ANC at the time?
MR NKUNA: I will say the one that I know is ANC, he is the one that Joe was working for as a Secretary.
ADV PATEL: And which was the other faction?
MR NKUNA: That one had the traitors of the Government of the day then.
ADV PATEL: And do you know any of these persons within the ANC who headed the so-called traitors of the Government of the day?
MR NKUNA: I don't know. I don't know their names.
ADV PATEL: Let me ask you the question - was Johannes Shabangu in the other faction?
MR NKUNA: I took it like that as we have already heard that he was collaborating with the police.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you take Mr Shabangu to be the leader of the other faction?
MR NKUNA: As I knew him, I thought so because he was the only one I knew. And I also knew that he was on the other faction.
ADV PATEL: So you knew that Mr Shabangu was with the other faction and the other, other faction was the one that your brother led, is that right?
MR NKUNA: That is right.
ADV PATEL: These were the two factions within the ANC? Is that correct?
MR NKUNA: I will say that is correct because the other faction was the State agents and also in the ANC.
ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that the faction that your brother led, could also be called a faction that supported the State and worked with the State?
MR NKUNA: I wouldn't say so, according to my knowledge I had never seen a police coming to Joe or him telling me that he was going to attend a police meeting of some kind, so I wouldn't say that based on that reasoning.
ADV PATEL: In your statement you said the late comrade Chris Hani, was aware about the matter. On what basis do you make that statement?
MR NKUNA: That I got from Joe.
ADV PATEL: Did you meet the late Chris Hani?
MR NKUNA: I saw him.
ADV PATEL: And you then say on orders from Chris and Joseph Nkuna, the orders to attack Mr Shabangu as you say, from Chris meaning Mr Chris, the late Mr Chris Hani and your brother, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: I am talking about the late Chris Hani.
ADV PATEL: Did the late Chris Hani give orders to attack Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: He did not give the orders to me in person, but while the mission was still under discussion, I found out that he also had a knowledge of some kind with regards to this operation.
ADV PATEL: In your statement you say on orders from comrade Chris and Joseph Nkuna, why do you say on orders from Chris?
MR NKUNA: I knew Chris as a soldier and the people with whom we were planning this mission, were soldiers as well so I knew that the missions were being operated by orders.
ADV PATEL: I am going to refer to page 23 of the judgement in your and your brother's trial and it is paginated page 24 under the section (c), Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: What page Mr Patel again?
ADV PATEL: Under section (c), the paginated page is page 24, the typed page of the judgement is page 23.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
ADV PATEL: Mr Chairman, may I proceed, thank you? I am going to refer to lines 3 and 4 on this page and I will quote from the magistrate's statement where he said, and that is a reference to yourself, you were accused 1. "He was not an active member, he only participated." Can you get that?
ADV DE JAGER: He is quoting on page 24 of the numbered pages, line 3 to 4. "He was however not an active member, but only a normal member. He did not participate otherwise in the ANC activities." Do you want to proceed further.
MR NKUNA: I pleaded not guilty when this was on. All the evidence that I rendered, it was a pure defence as I had pleaded not guilty, but today, it is a different story altogether because I am here to put the truth to the surface and what I have said, is just what happened.
ADV PATEL: Now, at your trial did you say this under oath because this seems to be a summation from the magistrate of the evidence that you gave? Did you give your evidence in the magistrate's court under oath?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nkuna, isn't it so that in fact you lied under oath when giving evidence in court?
MR NKUNA: That is so, because I had pleaded not guilty.
ADV PATEL: So you did lie in the magistrate's court, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: With regards to my case.
ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that you could have also lied in your statement made in this application form?
MR NKUNA: No, here I was prepared that I am going to put the truth to the surface with regard to this case.
ADV PATEL: I am coming back again when you say on orders from comrade Chris, did the orders to your knowledge, emanate from the late Chris Hani to attack Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: According to my knowledge, this emanated from Derick, Joe and Soli.
ADV PATEL: So why do you say on orders from comrade Chris?
MR NKUNA: What I am saying is they emanated from the three plus Chris Hani. Soli, Derick, Joe and Chris Hani, the four of them.
ADV PATEL: How do you know that Mr Chris Hani gave the orders to attack Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: This is what was told to me when we were discussing about this mission.
ADV PATEL: Who specifically said this to you, identify the person who told you this?
MR NKUNA: Joe told me that.
ADV PATEL: And did Joe tell you that Mr Chris Hani was specific that Mr Shabangu was a State agent and he had to be eliminated?
MR NKUNA: He told me that what they knew was that there was a mission that had to be undertaken against the State agents.
ADV PATEL: And this particular State agent was Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: Yes, because we were discussing about that particular mission of attacking him.
ADV PATEL: Was it only to attack Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: Yes, we were talking particularly about the attacking Mr Shabangu.
ADV PATEL: Was it not about attacking other, was the mission not also including the attack on other State agents or suspected State agents?
MR NKUNA: The person that we knew for sure he was a State agent, was Mr Shabangu, so we were discussing about the person we knew for sure. We could not plan to attack people that we did not know at the time.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nkuna, did the two cadres who informed you about the collaboration of Mr Shabangu with the State also tell you of any other agents who had been identified as collaborators?
MR NKUNA: The name that they made mention of was Shabangu only.
ADV PATEL: From the court record, and particularly from the judgement, the other names were Judge Modipani, Jackson Tembo, were they supposed to be attacked as well?
MR NKUNA: I don't have knowledge with regard to that.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Patel, could you kindly assist us. Where in the court record to they refer to them?
ADV PATEL: It is at page 11, which is the paginated page and the typed page number is page 10 at the bottom, and I think it is the fourth - you've got it, okay.
Did it matter that other persons who were with Mr Shabangu during the attack, if they got injured or killed?
MR NKUNA: According to our knowledge, we knew that Mr Shabangu was alone in the house, the only occupant of the house.
ADV PATEL: How did you know that Mr Shabangu was the only occupant of the house?
MR NKUNA: At the time when this event took place, I did not know that the people, I knew that he was using the house alone.
ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that he could have invited friends that night to his house?
MR NKUNA: It could have been possible, but we wouldn't know that.
ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that other members of the ANC were also at his home that night?
MR NKUNA: It could have been possible, but we did not see anyone who came in the house, except for him.
ADV PATEL: So the attack on Mr Shabangu was done with reckless disregard for the presence of any other persons at his home?
MR NKUNA: It was not recklessly done because this attack was directed to the bedroom, not to the other rooms of the house, only the bedroom.
ADV PATEL: Was the handgrenade thrown into the bedroom?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: Did it cause a fire?
MR NKUNA: It caused a fire.
ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that other persons in the house could have also been burnt or injured from the fire?
MR NKUNA: There were no flames, that fire was only caused by the explosion.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel, just remember that he is not actually denying criminal liability in respect of the several counts of attempted murder?
ADV PATEL: For that reason I am moving onto the next stage. Could you turn to the next page, which is page 10 and paragraph 11 (b), and I am going to read the paragraph and I would like your comment on it.
It says "it was approved in SACP Head Office in Johannesburg where we discussed with comrade Chris Hani that he approved the mission".
MR NKUNA: That I said from the information I got because he is the person Joe, who used to go to the Head Office. I never worked for the office, it wouldn't have been possible for me to be present when such things were discussed.
ADV PATEL: But you say under oath, we discussed with Chris Hani and he approved of the mission, you say "we". Can you explain that please?
MR NKUNA: I explained wrongly I think, because I took it that this was planned and all of us are involved and if I say "we", even though I wasn't there, but I am still implicated in the whole case because I took part.
ADV PATEL: You may be implicated in the entire case, but for the moment the concern is when you say "we discussed with Chris Hani and he approved of the mission". The implication of that very clearly is that you were part of that discussion.
ADV TEE: Objection, it is quite, Mr Chairman, with respect the witness has explained quite carefully that the reason why he is using "we", is because he was part of the whole attack, he did not have the benefit of legal representation at the time that he was filling this in, he does not understand the nuances and semantics and I think the question is unfair.
CHAIRMAN: I don't think it is unfair question, it is not a legal issue here, it is a factual statement. It relates to facts, not to law and if Mr Patel is not happy with the explanation given by the applicant, I think he is entitled to take the applicant on and cross-examine him on that answer which he doesn't find satisfactory.
ADV TEE: As you please.
ADV PATEL: Let's come back to this entire paragraph very clearly all right. And I will read it - it was approved in SACP Head Offices in Johannesburg and the emphasis are on two words, where we discussed with comrade Chris Hani and he approved of the mission.
Can you explain that statement because you are saying that where you amongst others were at the office of the SACP in Johannesburg and had a discussion with the late Chris Hani and he approved of that mission, please explain yourself.
MR NKUNA: I said we as I've already explained because I got that information from Joe, because I was involved in that mission, I referred to the whole thing as we. I wasn't there in person.
At the time when I was writing this statement, I wasn't careful. I wasn't careful enough in the usage of the words.
ADV PATEL: Why were you not careful enough?
MR NKUNA: In my mind I thought that as all of us were involved, I took what was told to me as if I was also there in person.
ADV PATEL: But you see if a person reads your statement, the first impression one would get would be that you were actually present when this was discussed, that is the primary impression one would get, isn't it?
MR NKUNA: Yes, it maybe so, but as I already explained to the Committee how it came about that this happened, I wasn't careful and wasn't aware.
ADV PATEL: There is a vast difference between saying you were told something by somebody on the one hand and saying that I was actually present.
MR NKUNA: Yes, there is a difference.
ADV PATEL: I don't understand why you didn't express in such a way that you said what you meant instead of expressing yourself in such a way that you said what you didn't mean.
MR NKUNA: Because I took part in this whole mission, I took it for granted that what was told to me and when I put it in writing and say "we", I did not realise that even though I wasn't there, this might complicate things.
ADV PATEL: Thank you. You see the use of the words ...
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nkuna, if I say we discuss, that would mean I and you discussed it, wouldn't that be so?
MR NKUNA: That is so.
ADV DE JAGER: Now you are saying this was discussed in the SACP Head Office in Johannesburg where we discussed. So you are saying there was a discussion in this party's office where we discussed.
And can it be understood otherwise than that you were in fact present there?
MR NKUNA: As that was under discussion and discussed, that was the information that was given to me and wasn't at the Head Office when this was planned.
ADV PATEL: Why did you not simply say that Joe told you that a discussion took place at the SACP Head Office in Johannesburg when Mr Chris Hani approved the mission?
MR NKUNA: As I have already explained, prior to this, I took it for granted that as I was part of this mission, now that Joe was given that order, all of us are involved in it. The order was given to Joe and through Joe, to us, so we all took part and we were involved.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel, I don't know whether you can take this point any further, I mean we keep on getting the same answer. If you don't accept it, then you will just argue it.
ADV PATEL: I am not going to persist with it any longer. Mr Chairman, I may almost be through, I just want to go through the record of the proceedings last time. Did you later discover that there were other persons in Mr Shabangu's house who were the victims of the attack?
MR NKUNA: I discovered that in the room where Mr Shabangu was, was his girlfriend as well.
ADV PATEL: But you were charged with the attempted murder of six persons, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: And you were convicted for the attempted murder of six persons, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV PATEL: And six people were victims of that attack, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: To my knowledge I would say at the time of the attack, we intended to attack one person, therefor we attacked the only room where he slept and we didn't attack the other rooms.
This shows that we intended to attack one person because we didn't attack the other rooms where the occupants were sleeping. And the court happened to find a different view in this matter. And therefor I would not ask for amnesty for the other matters.
ADV PATEL: Mr Chairman, I am finished now, thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: At what time did this attack occur? What was the time?
MR NKUNA: It was about two o'clock in the morning.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Nkuna, in all fairness to you, when you say you will not ask for amnesty for the other counts, your statement comes as a result of an altercation as it were between you and Mr Patel, counsel for the victims and we will not be noting that you are in fact not proceeding with an application for amnesty in respect of those counts, until and unless we hear from your counsel later that it is in fact your decision.
I don't like to rely on uninformed statements, only on legal aspects from lay people.
MR NKUNA: Chairperson, I think there is a misunderstanding because I said even the court found otherwise, I am also seeking amnesty on the other matters.
I think there was a misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Mr Nkuna, as I understand your evidence, the first time that you heard that Mr Shabangu was supposed to be a State agent or collaborator, was when Soli and Derick arrived at your house, shortly before the attack in November of 1992, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: And am I correct in understanding that when they told you that this was also the first time, let me put it this way, that you also heard that Mr Shabangu had been involved, allegedly involved in the attack on your brother, is that correct?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Now, was the situation this that when you heard this, did you speak to your brother Joe and say look, there is going to be an attack on Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: I will say I did talk to him, but when we were discussing the mission, we were all present.
MR BLACK: And did he then say to you, look don't worry, Chris Hani will approve, or has approved to give you the assurance that it would be okay to attack Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: Yes, he did say that and later Soli and the other confirmed the very same statement.
MR BLACK: Now this was how many days before the attack, was it the day before or ...?
MR NKUNA: I have a problem with time, I can't remember how many days before the attack.
MR BLACK: But was it shortly, very shortly before the attack that Mr Shabangu's name came up for the first time?
MR NKUNA: It wasn't a very long time before after that we had to carry out that task.
MR BLACK: Okay. And this was the first time I assume that your brother Joe Nkuna, had mentioned to you or told you that Shabangu was an agent and one of his attackers or did he tell you that at all? Let me phrase it in fairness to you.
Before Soli and Derick came to you with this information that Shabangu is allegedly a State agent and that he was one of the attackers of your brother, did your brother ever say to you, listen I knew who attacked me, I know that that Shabangu is also one of the State agents that you people were looking for. Did he ever say that before Derick and Soli told you?
MR NKUNA: He didn't.
MR BLACK: Now, you lived with your brother, is that not so?
MR NKUNA: That is correct, I was staying with him.
MR BLACK: And is it also not so that before Derick and Soli arrived in October or November of 1992 at your house, you had as a member of the ANC and as a member of your brother's faction of the ANC, had obviously been keen to identify State agents and collaborators.
MR NKUNA: That is correct. We wanted to know who these State agents are.
MR BLACK: And I am sure your brother in his position that he held and being your brother, if he had been able to identify an State agent or one of his attackers, he would as soon as he identified those people, he would let you know?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Yes. I just want to put it to you that this, I think it is clear that all this information that you received about a meeting with Chris Hani in the SACP offices and that he had approved of the mission, that just comes from your brother, Joe.
ADV TEE: Objection. It is not clear and it is going to be argued strenuously that it is not clear. In fact repeatedly the witness has been mentioning the name Soli, if the cross-examiner can put the question fairly.
MR BLACK: The meeting at the SACP office with Chris Hani, who gave you that information?
MR NKUNA: Joe told me about it at the time with his planning the mission.
MR BLACK: Yes, that is in October or November of 1992. The fact that Chris Hani had approved of the mission, who gave you that information?
MR NKUNA: Can you repeat the question please.
MR BLACK: Who gave you the information that Chris Hani specifically in person, had approved of that mission?
MR NKUNA: That was Joe.
MR BLACK: Yes, okay. Now, did Joe tell you when he had given approval of the mission?
MR NKUNA: He didn't tell me the time.
MR BLACK: You didn't question him?
MR NKUNA: I didn't.
MR BLACK: Right. Now just for the record purposes, you are a member of the ANC at the time, is that not so? You testified that you were an active member of the ANC?
MR NKUNA: I would say so because I was a member of the Youth League.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now do you know that at this time in October or November, or during 1992, the year of 1992, let's put it that way, do you know who was head of MK, the Commander?
MR NKUNA: Can you be specific? Do you mean nationally or regionally?
MR BLACK: Nationally. The national head.
MR NKUNA: It was Chris Hani.
MR BLACK: Is that what you thought?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Well I will put it to you that you are factually incorrect. That Joe Modise was the head. Chris Hani was a Commissar at that stage.
MR NKUNA: I didn't know as you put it. I used to know that Chris Hani was the one who is in charge of the MK.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, is that factually correct what you are putting to the witness?
MR BLACK: That is my information that has been given to me, yes. But if necessary, I will verify that.
MS KHAMPEPE: Please verify before putting things as facts to the witness.
MR BLACK: I will verify that, I have made attempts to verify that, but for argument when it comes to that stage, I will obviously ...
MS KHAMPEPE: And do recall that you are talking of the period between 1990 or 1992 to 1994.
MR BLACK: I did mention during the year of 1992 and I am specifically referring to the head of MK and not - on a National level.
Who identified the house of Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: I was the one who pointed the house.
MR BLACK: I have no further questions to put to this witness now, thank you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nkuna, for how long did Soli and Derick stay at your brother's house before the attack on Mr Shabangu was launched?
MR NKUNA: It was about not over about three weeks.
MS KHAMPEPE: So within those three weeks, was there any recognisance which was undertaken in order to take into account logistical consideration for the successful execution of the mission?
In other words did you at any stage accompany the cadres concerned to point out Shabangu's house before the attack was launched?
MR NKUNA: Yes, we did but it was far away, we didn't get a chance to go there and we had to go on that particular day we have to attack.
MS KHAMPEPE: When Soli and Derick arrived at your brother's house, were they armed with any kind of weaponry?
MR NKUNA: Yes, they were armed.
MS KHAMPEPE: So they brought along their own arms?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: What kind of arms did they bring along?
MR NKUNA: They had handgrenades and AK47's.
MS KHAMPEPE: Is that all? How many AK47's did they bring along?
MR NKUNA: I remember they had one.
MS KHAMPEPE: The one which you carried on the day of the attack, was it the AK47 which belonged to one of them?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: In your application you have made reference to the fact that I think that is on page 9 of your formal application which is under number (f) of the bundle, you say we got all the weapons from MK guerillas.
Who are you referring to in that sentence, who are these MK guerillas you are referring to?
MR NKUNA: This is Derick Skosana and Soli.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: When Derick came to you to come and stay with you, was it not by coincidence? Did he not come and stay with you people because he had come to collect some allowance here and when he couldn't get that kind of allowance, he was then offered to stay with you? He was offered accommodation at your place?
MR NKUNA: I don't think it was like that because he arrived together with Soli, they came straight to our house.
CHAIRMAN: But he was coming from Witbank wasn't he or don't you know?
MR NKUNA: That is what they told me, they were from Witbank.
CHAIRMAN: Are you then saying that he brought these weapons with him from Witbank?
MR NKUNA: I would say so because they were coming from Witbank and I didn't know where they got from Witbank, where they got the arms through, I should think they brought the weapons from Witbank.
CHAIRMAN: Are you sure that they brought their own weapons or are you not sure about that, could they have been issued with these weapons by the MK in Nelspruit?
MR NKUNA: The first time I saw them, they were carrying arms. So I thought they came with the arms from where they were coming from.
CHAIRMAN: I see. Now if we were to look at your application form where you speak of factions, the factions that you are talking about, were they not really firstly the one faction which accused your brother of having embezzled some funds on the one hand and on the other hand, a faction consisting of your brother's supporters?
MR NKUNA: I would say that is correct.
CHAIRMAN: Wasn't this the cause of the division within the members of the ANC, that region?
MR NKUNA: I don't understand the question.
CHAIRMAN: Were the allegations against your brother and his ousting from his position at some stage, not the real cause of the division, the real cause of the factions?
MR NKUNA: I don't think so because after he was suspended there had been an enquiry and it was found that there is no evidence that points that he misused funds.
CHAIRMAN: I don't quite understand what you mean by saying that there were two factions and the other faction was as it were, a faction consisting of informers or agents. I do not understand that especially the only member of that faction you can tell us about or the only member that you knew, was Mr Shabangu.
MR NKUNA: Yes, Mr Shabangu was known at the time. When his name was mentioned as one of the agents, after Joe was injured, we suspected but we didn't know the real name of the agent.
CHAIRMAN: Was Mr Shabangu not attacked simply because it was suspected he had taken part in the attack on your brother?
MR NKUNA: I would say it was one of the reasons, but the reason behind the killing of Mr Shabangu, it was because he was suspected as one of the State agents.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nkuna, you have just stated to us that you didn't know the real name of the agent.
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: You have obviously heard the evidence from your brother and he has made it quite, crystal clear that there was a suspicion that Mr Shabangu had had a hand in his attack long before the two cadres arrived at your brother's home.
And he goes on to say I think specifically at paragraph 49, this belief was common to many others around him, including his family, other ANC officials and many of the cadres loyal to him.
That is what is appearing on his application and that is his evidence and he has repeated that again I think at paragraph 53. Now are you saying that before the two cadres arrived at your brother's home, you did not know that Shabangu was suspected of having had a hand in your brother's attack because that is not the evidence of your brother?
MR NKUNA: The first time I heard the name mentioned was a time when I met Derick and his friend, we did suspect it but we didn't know the real person.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you suspected that someone had had a hand and you didn't know, you didn't suspect that it was Mr Shabangu, you didn't suspect Mr Shabangu at that stage?
MR NKUNA: We suspected a lot of people working closely with Joe, I would say that included Shabangu too.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Did you know Mr Shabangu before Derick and Soli came to tell you about him?
MR NKUNA: Yes, I knew him but I wasn't that close to him.
CHAIRMAN: You knew his name that he was Johannes Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: Yes, I used to know him as Ngqa Shabangu.
CHAIRMAN: Under paragraph 10 (a) on page 9, I know Mr Patel asked you this question, but I didn't want to interrupt you because I didn't want to disturb his line of cross-examination. I don't understand what you mean by saying the aim was to eliminate the people siding with our opponents because there was a fight and our Commander, Joseph Harold Nkuna, was the first to be attacked and nearly killed.
The impression I get from this sentence is that this fight existed well before the actual attack, the actual attack on your brother.
MR NKUNA: I call it a fight right from the beginning when my brother was attacked.
CHAIRMAN: Maybe you don't understand my question. You must tell me whether I read this sentence of yours correctly. As I understand this sentence, it is conveying to me that there was a fight as you say but this fight existed and in fact had been there well before the actual attack of your brother, in other words the impression I get here is that there was a fight in existence, it culminated in the attack on your brother, but even before the actual attack on your brother, there was in fact already a fight.
MR NKUNA: When I wrote this statement, I was referring to a fight which started from the time Joe was attacked because no one was attacked before Joe got attacked.
CHAIRMAN: Were you not in fact here by a "fight" referring to the squabble that existed around your brother's position and allegations of misappropriation of funds?
MR NKUNA: May you please repeat your question?
CHAIRMAN: Were you by a "fight" here, were you not referring to a squabble that centred around the allegations that your brother had misappropriated money?
MR NKUNA: No, I wasn't referring to that. As I stated it started, I am talking about a physical fight when my brother was attacked.
CHAIRMAN: How do you understand, why would you understand an attack on your brother as a fight?
MR NKUNA: It was because at that time, the ANC was fighting against the old regime.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Tee?
ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkuna, you were asked about the attack that took place on your brother and you were asked a lot about hired assassins.
What made the attack on your brother so peculiar, can you explain the circumstances of that attack? For example, was any money stolen from your brother?
MR NKUNA: As a leader within the ANC structures, fighting against the regime, I suspected that the regime would do anything to kill him and when he got injured, the car was not stolen, the money in his possession wasn't stolen and I came to think that the intention to attack was merely to kill.
ADV TEE: How much money was he carrying at the time of the attack?
MR NKUNA: I can't remember the exact amount, but it was about R2 000-00.
ADV TEE: Where was that money recovered?
MR NKUNA: In his clothes at the hospital.
ADV TEE: Was there anything missing from the car?
MR NKUNA: Only his briefcase which contained documents relating to his work, disappeared.
ADV TEE: Were any of his personal effects, like his shoes and his clothing, removed from the scene?
MR NKUNA: Nothing was taken from his possession, personally.
ADV TEE: What type of clothing was he wearing that day, was it cheap or expensive clothing?
MR NKUNA: He was wearing expensive clothes, I would say it was a suit.
ADV TEE: Can you describe his shoes?
CHAIRMAN: What do you mean, describing his shoes?
ADV TEE: Were the shoes expensive or cheap shoes that he was wearing?
MR NKUNA: It was a very expensive shoe with the name of Christiaan Dior.
ADV TEE: Mr Nkuna, what you are saying is that after the attack the car was not stolen, the car was not stolen, the money was not stolen, his expensive shoes were not stolen, his suit was not stolen, but all that was missing was his briefcase?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: That is exactly what I understood him to say Mr Tee, I don't know whether it is necessary to repeat it.
CHAIRMAN: Except that you forgot to ask about the watch.
ADV TEE: Thank you. Was he wearing a watch?
MR NKUNA: Yes.
ADV TEE: Was it an expensive watch?
MR NKUNA: Yes, he was wearing a very expensive watch from the USA.
ADV TEE: So after the attack, none of the normal things that one would expect in a robbery, was removed but a briefcase was removed?
MR NKUNA: Yes, that is correct.
ADV TEE: So when you refer to the suspicious circumstances of the attack of your brother, is that what led you to make your assumption?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: And then also you testified about the fact that the car had been cleaned before the police arrived?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: Was the briefcase or the contents ever recovered?
MR NKUNA: We didn't get anything up to today.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nkuna, can you just explain to me why you believed that it was the State's hand in your brother's attack. Why should the State hire assassins within the ANC to attack your brother and not be able to attack your brother on their own, why should they recruit people within the ANC?
MR NKUNA: It was because at the time when he got injured, only the ANC people knew his whereabouts and his movements and since it was late when it happened, I would say that was the reason.
ADV TEE: Now in your attack on Mr Shabangu's house, you said that two grenades were thrown?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: Who threw the first grenade and who threw the second grenade?
MR NKUNA: Soli Morapi threw the first and the second by Skosana.
ADV TEE: What happened to the grenade thrown by Solomon?
MR NKUNA: He threw it through the window and the window had curtains and some burglar proof, it hit the burglars, fell outside and exploded. The second one managed to get into the house, and exploded.
ADV TEE: And did that go into the room of Mr Shabangu?
MR NKUNA: That is correct.
ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further re-examination.
CHAIRMAN: You indicated that you preferred to argue only after Mr Skosana has testified in his own application?
ADV TEE: Mr Chairman that is correct yes, but I will be available tomorrow and on Friday, I have not time constraints at the moment.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel, do you have witnesses to call?
ADV PATEL: At this stage, no, we will get a clear indication immediately after lunch when Mr Skosana appears.
CHAIRMAN: Just for information Mr Black, do you intend to call any witnesses?
MR BLACK: No Mr Chairman, and I understand from the applicant that no further evidence will be led on their behalf so certainly on behalf of the Commission, I don't intend calling any evidence.
CHAIRMAN: Well, let's adjourn until two o'clock then.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRMAN: Mr Patel, you said you would indicate to us after lunch time whether or not you had any witnesses?
ADV PATEL: I can now indicate with confidence, that I will not have any witnesses.
CHAIRMAN: So then that concludes the proceedings in respect of the applications of J.H. Nkuna and C. Nkuna and Mr Tee, who represents both applicants, has indicated to us that he wishes to argue later after listening to the evidence in the next application. Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, there is just one aspect which I wish to raise with my learned friend, Mr Mojapelo before we commence proceedings. May I just approach him and it need not be placed on record.
Primarily it refers to the seating arrangements, I am not quite sure if the applicant would be comfortable sitting next to the previous two applicants, presenting his evidence.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, isn't the position that we have completed the application of the Nkuna's and that they at this stage, are not figuring as applicants, so can't they be excused and sit somewhere in the public gallery and we could proceed with the next application?
MR BLACK: With respect Adv De Jager, that is what I propose, when I noticed what was happening here, I would suggest that that would be a far more comfortable arrangement as far as the applicant is concerned and the presentation. His legal representatives can possibly remain where they are. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Except that they may from time to time, have to give instructions to their counsel as and when Mr Skosana will be giving evidence in which case I - surely counsel must be able to sort the seating out, it shouldn't be for us to do that.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, could I suggest that you move over and let the applicant come and sit in your place?
MR BLACK: I have no objection to that, I have not objection to that, except that Mr Tee hasn't, the Instructing Attorney, who could convey anything to him as it happens in a normal court practice if the other two applicants resume sit, but I certainly have no objections to move, it would be a little shuffling of papers, but that is about it.
CHAIRMAN: Alternatively we may have to suggest that if that would not inconvenience Mr Patel, too much, Mr Patel and his attorney to sit where you are sitting Mr Black and you, Mr Black, you and your client with Mr Mojapelo, you sit at the middle table.
MR BLACK: Yes, that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN: ... but with regard to the previous two applications, can you quickly do that? We can close those proceedings formally and then move on to the next application.
ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I made enquiries, it related to the position of Chris Hani. My enquiries, during the year of 1992, enquiries reveal that in 1991 Chris Hani, the late Chris Hani was elected to become the Secretary General of the South African Communist Party as a consequence of that, he did not participate in the Command structure of MK, he was the Chief of Staff up until he became Secretary General.
I am given to understand that he did in fact continue as Chief during the transition period, Chief of Staff before handing over to Mr Sipiwe Nyanda, who became Chief of Staff of MK. Mr Joe Modise was always a Commander of MK. So all I can in fairness to the applicant put, that there is a serious doubt that at the time in 1992, Chris Hani would have been actively participating in the Command structure of MK. Thank you, that is all.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
