Amnesty Hearings

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. The first matter on the roll for today is that of Sikulu Patrick Hlengwa, Application number 3418/96.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, I act for the applicant, surname is Samuel, the first name is Sivin.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are calling the applicant?

MR SAMUEL: I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hlengwa, please stand. Are you prepared to take the oath in this matter?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

SIKULU PATRICK HLENGWA: (sworn, states).

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

MR SAMUEL: Yes, thank you. Mr Hlengwa when were you born?

MR HLENGWA: 1960.

MR SAMUEL: And where did you live prior to you being incarcerated?

MR HLENGWA: At Umgababa.

MR SAMUEL: Are you applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr Mbambo, which took place ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: Not Mbambo, but Mbeko.

MR SAMUEL: Was it Mr Hlakepani John Mbeko who was murdered on the 25th of January 1991?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: How do you spell Mbeko?

MR SAMUEL: M B E K O.

CHAIRPERSON: M B E K O, and his first name?

MR SAMUEL: H L A K E P A N I, Hlakepani John. I’m reading from the judgment of Judge ...(indistinct) I think his name is spelt there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is the first name again? H L ?

MR SAMUEL: H L A K E P A N I.

CHAIRPERSON: Mbeko, M B E K O?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Do you belong to any political organisation?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: What organisation?

MR HLENGWA: ANC.

MR SAMUEL: When did you join the ANC?

MR HLENGWA: Even though I cannot remember very well, but I think in the 1980's.

MR SAMUEL: And did you join any specific organisation aligned to the ANC, during that time?

MR HLENGWA: UDF.

MR SAMUEL: Now the deceased, was he also a member of the ANC or the UDF?

MR HLENGWA: He was a member of the ANC as well.

MR SAMUEL: Now prior to the murder in 1991, can you describe what was happening to the ANC members in the Umgababa area?

MR HLENGWA: What do you mean when you say to describe?

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us, were there any attacks on them?

MR HLENGWA: Before I murdered Mbeki, there were conflict between IFP and ANC. The area was predominantly IFP and we UDF members when we fought we didn’t want that area to be ruled by IFP. We fought for a long time. Eventually some of us were discriminated or they were no longer liked by ANC, they joined IFP. People like Stoffel Ngobo, they left ANC.

MR SAMUEL: Can you hold on?

CHAIRPERSON: Please interpreter, I’d like you tell us a little more clearly what the applicant is saying. I don’t make much sense of what has been said, from the time he said eventually, then he carried on. I’m sorry to tell you, but please, give that answer again.

MR HLENGWA: In our area at Umgababa there were conflicts between the IFP and the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we’ve got that.

MR HLENGWA: There were fights between the two organisations. Some members of us, in other words, some members of ANC left ANC and joined IFP. We were continuously attacked. We used to camp..

MR SAMUEL: Okay. You said, before we go onto something new about your members joining the IFP, let’s talk about the attacks on the ANC people. How many attacks were there prior to the murder of Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: Many people were killed by IFP in the community, and those people who were killed were ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there many IFP people killed by the ANC as well, or by the UDF?

MR HLENGWA: No, there were not. They were not killed by ANC. IFP was the one who was attacking ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so my question was that no IFP people were killed by the ANC people at that time?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s correct, there were no IFP people who were killed by ANC.

MR SAMUEL: Which party was, had a stronghold in the area where you lived?

MR HLENGWA: IFP.

MR SAMUEL: Were the IFP in a majority in that area?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, they were the majority.

MR SAMUEL: And did, at any stage, you as the ANC take any decisions to attack the IFP?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we took that decision that we should attack them because they were attacking us.

MR SAMUEL: Were there any IFP people killed in these attacks?

MR HLENGWA: We were not lucky as to killing them.

CHAIRPERSON: You see they say, "...we decided". I would like to know when they decided. Where they decided.

MR HLENGWA: Even though I cannot remember when the decision was taken because it has been a long time, but we were usually holding meetings to take actions against the IFP, but we were not so lucky to get hold of them.

CHAIRPERSON: And what year are we talking about now?

MR HLENGWA: In 1991.

ADV DE JAGER: You said, "...We took the decisions". What was your role, were you a leader in the ANC? If not, who was the leader, and who took the decisions?

MR HLENGWA: I was just a member. The person who was the leader was Joe Ngema.

MR SAMUEL: Who started the attacks in the area? Was it the IFP or the ANC?

MR HLENGWA: IFP started.

CHAIRPERSON: He’s already said that. It is because the IFP started, they took a decision to attack.

MR SAMUEL: So just to reiterate for the record that the ANC then took the decision in response to attacks that were taking place on ANC members.

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: Now you speak of these, this decision, being taken, this decision having been taken in 1991. When were the majority of the ANC members killed in that area?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, it was in 1991. I cannot remember very well but I think prior to 1991 there were attacks as well.

MR SAMUEL: Now a gentleman by the name of Stoffel, was he an ANC member?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I’ll say so, because he used to come to us, but later he joined IFP.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, before we get to that, when you say he used to come to us, did he attend any meetings of the ANC?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I used to see him when we were having meetings, he will be present.

MR SAMUEL: At that meetings were there, was there anything secret, any secrets of the ANC in that area discussed?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: Where were these meetings held? Were they held at a particular place, or were they held at different places?

MR HLENGWA: Usually in a school.

MR SAMUEL: Did Stoffel remain an ANC member, or did he join another party?

MR HLENGWA: He didn’t stay that long in the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, this witness doesn’t say that Stoffel was an ANC member. He merely says he thinks that Stoffel was a member because he attended some of our meetings. Now that’s as far as he goes.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: There was a time when he stopped attending their meetings. Is that what you’re trying to say?

MR SAMUEL: Just, during those days, one didn’t really have membership of the organisation as such, but one’s membership stemmed from attending these secret meetings. To that extent he may have been a member. But I take the Honourable Chairperson’s point.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he says he doesn’t, he thinks that he was a member simply because he saw him attending meetings. Then there was a time when he stopped attending meetings. Is that the position, really? There was a time when he stopped attending ANC meetings.

MR SAMUEL: Mr Hlengwa you say Stoffel used to attend the ANC meetings.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, he used to come.

MR SAMUEL: Did he stop attending ANC meetings?

MR HLENGWA: Yes he did.

MR SAMUEL: When was this?

MR HLENGWA: The last time we saw each other it was in a meeting. The meeting was Nkotoyo School, in 1991.

MR SAMUEL: So is your answer the last time you saw him at a meeting was in 1991?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: Now after Stoffel stopped coming to ANC meetings, what happened?

MR HLENGWA: After he stopped, we experienced problems when we were attacked in numbers. We were attacked in various places, even our hiding places were known or were revealed. It was like someone had revealed to the enemies that we were hiding wherever.

MR SAMUEL: Whose hiding places? When you say our hiding places, whose hiding places are you referring to?

MR HLENGWA: We ANC members.

MR SAMUEL: And what did you, to whom did you attribute this increase in the attacks against ANC members?

MR HLENGWA: It became clear to us that the person who was revealing this was Stoffel, because he knew our hiding places and our secrets.

MR SAMUEL: As an organisation, did the ANC discuss any strategies in regard to dealing with Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we did.

ADV DE JAGER: Was Stoffel’s name Stoffel Ngcobo?

MR HLENGWA: No, Ngcobo. N G C O B O.

MR SAMUEL: What did the ANC decide to do with Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: We met, it was in the morning, at a certain area in Umgababa, it’s called Ukalo. We discussed as members of the ANC ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just, sorry, how do you spell the name of that place? You met at Ukalo, how do you spell that?

MR HLENGWA: It was in the open space, the wilderness.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that name Ukhalo?

INTERPRETER: U K H A L O.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what happened at Ukhalo?

MR HLENGWA: We discussed and we came to a decision that we should look for Stoffel and we knew where his house was. I volunteered alone. I told the group, the ANC group, that I alone, I was going, my name, I was referred to as Malumi, and I told the group that I was going to approach him and I was going to hide somewhere because I knew his route, his usual route which he usually used, so I decided that I was going to hide and wait for him and attack him.

MR SAMUEL: What was the thinking behind sending you alone to approach Stoffel, and not the whole ANC group?

MR HLENGWA: The reason I took such a decision was I wanted to protect other members of ANC, so that we are not arrested, all of us, and also we didn’t want that IFP should see us as a group, because if they so did they were going to attack us. Therefore I took the decision that I would be the only one.

MR SAMUEL: Did you manage to get hold of Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I did.

MR SAMUEL: When? When?

MR HLENGWA: At that time I went to the area where I told them I was going to wait next to his, closer to his house ...(intervention)

MR SAMUEL: I’m sorry Mr Hlengwa, the question was when, and to help you with this question ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: It was on a Saturday.

MR SAMUEL: Yes, how many weeks before the death of Mr Mbeko, did you manage to get hold of Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: I got hold of Stoffel first.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but can you tell us what month it was that you’re talking about?

MR HLENGWA: It was in 1991. I don’t remember which month or week, or the date. I’ve been in prison for a long time, I don’t remember.

MR SAMUEL: If you listen to the question, perhaps you will be able to answer it. How many weeks before Mr Mbeko was killed, did you get hold of Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: Refresh his memory. Tell him when Mbeko was killed, according to the papers.

ADV DE JAGER: On the 20th of January 1991, Mbeko was killed.

MR HLENGWA: I don’t remember how many weeks, but it wasn’t that long. I think it was after two weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean it was two weeks before the killing of the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: I mean I killed Stoffel two weeks and then two weeks later I killed Mbeko.

MR SAMUEL: I don’t think he said that interpreter, can you find out really whether he said that he killed Stoffel, because that’s not my instructions.

MR HLENGWA: Let me just clarify this, because I’m also confused. I’m also confused, the question is confusing me. Stoffel didn’t die, but Mr Mbeko was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, just let’s stop there. For the time being we are concerned with approximately when it was that you went to Mr Stoffel’s place, and you’ve told us that it was about two weeks before the deceased died.

MR HLENGWA: I think I understand now. We held a meeting in the morning, and then I went the same day, that afternoon I went and attacked Stoffel.

CHAIRPERSON: Now just tell us what happened when you went to Stoffel’s place, or you went to a place close to Stoffel’s house. What happened then?

MR HLENGWA: Stoffel then appeared. I went there. I waited for him, and then took him to the ANC members where I left them on the open space.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not talk to Stoffel before you took him away? Did you say anything to him?

MR HLENGWA: I just pointed the road on him. I just told him that "...We must just proceed, we’re going on".

CHAIRPERSON: You told him to accompany you. Where were you taking him to?

MR HLENGWA: We were off to the ANC members, taking him there to let him know that here is the men.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened when you reached the place where the ANC members were?

MR HLENGWA: We then left with him, the other remained. We took him to another place called Ziko.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, my question was, when you took him to where the ANC people were, you and Stoffel arrived there, what happened?

MR HLENGWA: I told them that here is the man, and they asked him: "We do not find you here amongst the ANC members", and he agreed and said that the IFP people actually came and took him by force.

CHAIRPERSON: What did the ANC members ask Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: They asked him on which side is he, as he was initially amongst the ANC members, and now where is he. And he answered, he said he was taken by IFP people by force.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened next?

MR HLENGWA: We took him to another place called Ziko to interrogate him.

CHAIRPERSON: Just spell the name of this place.

INTERPRETER: Ziko, it’s Z I K O.

CHAIRPERSON: So who went to Ziko?

MR HLENGWA: A lot of us went there. I cannot count how many were we.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened at Ziko?

MR HLENGWA: On our arrival there, Mr Mahlangi Mbeko arrived, and asked that we should bring him, bring him to, as they were in-laws.

CHAIRPERSON: That doesn’t make sense at all. You arrived there, then the deceased arrived there, yes? And what did the deceased say?

MR HLENGWA: He asked him that we would like to have a word with him, and then he took him. They went ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you not having any difficulty with this?

INTERPRETER: I am.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we are having considerable difficulty. He used the words he, them and so on, and one doesn’t know who he is talking about. So let’s just be - it might take a little time but it’s important for us to know, you see, so I might have to stop you every time unless I understand what you are saying. What did Mbeko, the deceased, what did he say when he arrived there. Tell them.

MR HLENGWA: He took Stoffel and then he said he would like to speak to Stoffel.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Where did he take Stoffel to? When you said he took Stoffel.

MR HLENGWA: We did not exactly know because their departure, both of them did not return.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn’t say where he was taking him?

MR HLENGWA: No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: So the deceased and Stoffel left?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened next?

MR HLENGWA: Thereafter we dispersed. Our final word was that we will meet in the afternoon,

CHAIRPERSON: What happened next?

MR HLENGWA: Thereafter, while I was at home, I heard the kids crying, saying that there is an attack, people are actually approaching from the school.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the same day?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So later that day, whilst you were at home, you heard the kids crying.

MR HLENGWA: They were actually shouting, saying, "...uncle, here’s the war, the attack, coming from the school". The name of the school is Ngamwayeke.

CHAIRPERSON: So what was it that the kids were shouting?

MR HLENGWA: They said, "...Here is the war".

CHAIRPERSON: What is meant by here is the war?

MR HLENGWA: I’m not sure how to explain, but that I say they saw the people in a big crowd. That’s what is referring to the war. People attacking. They attack us.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand all this?

ADV DE JAGER: While he was at home that afternoon he was called by children coming from the school that there was a group coming to attack them.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, now the children have warned you that there is a group approaching you, and they want to attack you. Is that correct?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they coming towards your house, this group?

MR HLENGWA: That is actually the place or the space which the attackers usually use whenever they attack us, so that is the place they use, or the area they use to enter when they attack us.

CHAIRPERSON: And how can they attack you when you are not in the area?

MR HLENGWA: What I am saying is that, it’s just like when I’m saying that here are people attacking, that’s what I’m saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Just wait. There was nobody attacking at that time. The children said, "...Here are the attackers coming from the school." My question to you was, where were they? Were they coming? Were they coming to your house?

MR HLENGWA: These people were actually going to attack the entire area and particularly my house or my area.

MR SAMUEL: Just to clear something up. You say these children warned you of a group of people coming from the school towards your, towards a particular area. You also told us that this the route that the attackers normally use when they attack the area.

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened then?

MR HLENGWA: I went up to the upper area and the others had actually realised that, and then we were actually willing to face them. Unfortunately they were in larger numbers as compared to us and we ran away.

ADV SIGODI: Just to clear this. This area in which you stayed, was it a predominantly ANC area, or was it full of both IFP and ANC people?

MR HLENGWA: What I can say is that people were in larger numbers. IFP was no longer there. It was now ANC only, and they were attacking. IFP was attacking. The people who were residing there were now ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, you’ve told us that you ran away. You and the other decided to run away. What was the next thing that happened?

MR HLENGWA: We ran away and thereafter, after they’ve shot and actually injured other people, we came back because

CHAIRPERSON: Please, did they attack, did they shoot, did they kill anybody, when you ran away?

MR HLENGWA: Some died, some got injured.

CHAIRPERSON: You only learned that when you got back, because you had fled?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the next thing that happened?

MR HLENGWA: Thereafter,

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, are you going on to the next day? I need to ask you some questions about the same day. Are you still dealing with the same day?

MR HLENGWA: Still the same day.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, go ahead.

MR HLENGWA: When we came back others had already told the police that were already attacked there at Umgababa, and people got injured, and the police from Umkomaas came and took the corpse.

MR SAMUEL: Now, the people that died, who were they and which party did they belong to?

MR HLENGWA: ANC people. I wouldn’t know their names, their surnames.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Who were the attackers?

MR HLENGWA: IFP members.

MR SAMUEL: Did you recognise any IFP member in particular there?

MR HLENGWA: In that attack what I marked was wearing a navy-blue overall. It was tied on the stomach. It was Stoffel. He’s the one that was actually clear to me because I knew him very well.

MR SAMUEL: Now, did the ANC meet to discuss the attack on you on that particular day?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we met, as members of ANC, discussing that attack. It was apparent to us that it is the departure or disappearance of those two people that we were attacked, because it wasn’t that long after they left us that we were attacked, so it was apparent to us that the problem is with these two people, because they are the ones who actually fetched the other to come and attack us.

MR SAMUEL: Did the meeting take any decision regarding these people?

MR HLENGWA: At that particular point in time the decision was taken, but it was never taken on that day.

MR SAMUEL: We’re talking about that meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was a meeting?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that meeting people felt that the attack came about as a result of the work of Stoffel and the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened next?

MR HLENGWA: Thereafter, I met, we, I myself met with another ANC member. We discussed.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was this member?

MR HLENGWA: It was our leader, John Ngema.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you discuss, and did you receive any orders from him?

MR HLENGWA: We discussed that the way we were attacked, it is not due to the fact that, it was evident or apparent to us that they were told how they will actually find us, because these people were from amongst us. Because this actually happened the same day.

ADV DE JAGER: So you discussed it, and you concluded that Stoffel and Mbeko was responsible for the attack, or did play a part in the attack?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now what did you decide what should you do about them, if anything?

MR HLENGWA: We took a decision that one of them must be killed.

ADV DE JAGER: Why not both of them?

ADV SIGODI: Did you say must be killed or ...?

CHAIRPERSON: What was decided specifically? Say it again.

MR HLENGWA: We took a decision that Mr Mhlanga Mbeko must be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Although nobody saw Mr Mbeko as being part of the people that did the actual attacking?

MR HLENGWA: Yes. It wasn’t easy after, finding Stoffel. Mbeko was the person that we can actually find, and that’s the man I killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want to get it absolutely clear as to why was it decided that Mr Mbeko should be killed? Nobody saw him as part of the group that attacked your area.

MR HLENGWA: That decision was taken. It’s because when he took this one it was apparent to us that he, they are working together. They are actually hiding it from us that they know each other, they are working together.

MR SAMUEL: Did the possibility enter your mind that Mr Mbeko may have just, merely tried to save Mr Stoffel’s life, and that he may not actually be involved in this, involved with the IFP?

MR HLENGWA: By being with the ANC members, they were actually, in actual fact they were IFP members from their own sect, when all these things occurred. It was not easy for them to leave the area so they pretended to be the member who have joined us, whereas that wasn’t the case, they were the people who were really IFP members.

MR SAMUEL: After Stoffel escaped and the attack took place, did Mr Mbeko come to any other ANC meetings thereafter?

MR HLENGWA: No, he didn’t come to any of the meetings, and we actually sent messages that we would like to see him regarding the attack, but he did not come.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not go and see Mr, the deceased, you and others, to question him about this suspicion you had?

MR HLENGWA: We tried to find him, but we couldn’t because we sent the messages for him so that he may come to the meetings several time, but in vain.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not take the trouble of going to him to see him?

MR HLENGWA: I, in particular, went. However, I did not enter. I was standing on the road. I sent three boys to enter and come with him, so that we can discuss. They did not find him. The find the mother, that is the wife, and explain to the boys that he’s not around, he’s not in the house.

MR SAMUEL: This incident you speak of took place on the day of the killing?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: The Honourable Chairperson was talking about before the decision to kill him was taken, did you not make any other efforts to discuss with this person who was a member of the organisation why he did what he did?

MR HLENGWA: We did not get that chance to find him, because he was nowhere to be found in the area. We couldn’t locate him.

MR SAMUEL: And when he went missing in the area, what conclusions did you draw regarding his affiliations, political affiliations?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about he, himself, or his group at a meeting or what?

MR SAMUEL: What conclusions did you draw yourself, and did the group meet and draw any conclusions regarding the disappearance of Mr Mbeko, the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: What I thought is that he’s actually, he was hiding in the IFP area.

MR SAMUEL: That’s what you thought. What did the ANC as a group think, when Mr Mbeko was not to be seen?

MR HLENGWA: Even the group itself took it, took him as a person who is on the IFP side because whenever we sent messages for him he doesn’t come to see us.

CHAIRPERSON: Whenever you sent messages to him the messages did not reach him.

MR HLENGWA: I wouldn’t know whether it would reach him or not, but the people who were sending it to him as members, all of us sending those members to look for him, they wouldn’t locate him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they couldn’t find him.

MR HLENGWA: They did not find him.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, now what happened after that?

MR HLENGWA: (TRANSLATION Indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: We can’t hear a word.

ADV DE JAGER: We couldn’t hear the translation.

MR HLENGWA: We then left. We left the area to another house. We went to the Umtjale residence.

MR SAMUEL: Are you now talking about the day of the killing.

MR HLENGWA: I’m talking about that day.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, you told us that you sent three men to the house of the deceased, and his wife told them that he was not around?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, the boys said that.

MR SAMUEL: The boys reported that to you?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: You now tell us that you then went to the Umtjale house?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you go there?

MR HLENGWA: Our going there was due to the fact that some people would meet there at Umtjale.

MR SAMUEL: Was this house a shebeen?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Did you meet the deceased at the Umtjale house?

MR HLENGWA: We arrived there first, and then he came in later, but not that much later.

MR SAMUEL: What happened when the deceased arrive?

MR HLENGWA: He entered the house and requested what he needed, and thereafter I went straight to him, asked him to go with me outside.

MR SAMUEL: Go on.

MR HLENGWA: And thereafter he did not go back to the house. We then left with the other three, the ones that I had sent, we left.

CHAIRPERSON: This makes no sense. Does it make any sense to you? When you say, when he arrived that at the shebeen of Umtjale, you told him to come outside with you. Did he come outside with you?

MR HLENGWA: Yes he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else was with you, when the deceased came out?

MR HLENGWA: I was with Manci, Tuli and Boy Khoza.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell the name of this first person?

INTERPRETER: M A N C I.

MR SAMUEL: For the record, are these the three other people that appeared in the criminal ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Leave it at that, it doesn’t matter, for the time being.

CHAIRPERSON: You were there, you asked him to accompany you, and you were with these three people?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened outside?

MR HLENGWA: I said to him, "...I’m the one whose calling you, Malumi". And then I said to him so that, I said to him that the reason at the meeting or camp that we supposed to had to right away we should go there.

CHAIRPERSON: Stop there, I didn’t understand what you said to him.

MR HLENGWA: And then I said to him, we should go to a camp where we are camping on that particular day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on. What happened next?

MR HLENGWA: And thereafter we left. Then I said we can leave. We proceeded. I was carrying a gun.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he accompany you?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he agree to accompany you?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he ask you why you had to go to the camp?

MR HLENGWA: No he didn’t ask.

ADV SIGODI: Just to clarify something. If you were taking him to the camp, did he come with you willingly?

MR HLENGWA: Yes. The way we robbed him we actually told him that there was a camp that we are off to, so everything that was to be done, that he had to do, he can do it later, that’s the way we robbed him, because we wanted to do things fast or quickly.

MR SAMUEL: For the record, is it robbed or tricked?

INTERPRETER: Tricked. In other words we tricked him into coming with you.

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So then, you, your three colleagues and the deceased, left Umtjale’s place and went ...(intervention).

MR HLENGWA: We went to the road. We proceeded not for a long distance, but we did walk. It was myself and him in front, the other three were behind us. I was carrying a gun, 303 gun. I was carrying it right in the middle. We were talking.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. When you say you were carrying the gun, where were you carrying it? In your hand?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, in my right hand.

CHAIRPERSON: And he could see it?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, he could see it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he ask you why you were carrying a gun?

MR HLENGWA: No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now then what happened next?

MR HLENGWA: We proceeded and then I shot him. I didn’t shoot him, but I hit him with the gun. I was holding the gun with my right hand. The gun with the long pipe. I turned ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Please ask him to talk one sentence and allow you to interpret it, so that we can follow and write down everything he’s saying. We can’t write down while he’s talking and talking and talking, without stop.

CHAIRPERSON: While you were walking ahead of him, you had a gun in your hand, you then hit him with the gun? Right?

MR HLENGWA: And then he fell.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn’t interpret that he said ...(ZULU WORD).

INTERPRETER: He hit him with the gun, and then he fell. He hit him deliberately.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to her.

INTERPRETER: He hit him deliberately with the gun and then he fell.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell him why you hit him?

MR HLENGWA: When we were walking I’ve already talked to him and I told him that the reason I’m calling him was because of the people who were killed after Stoffie was taken by him, the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: You see all this ought to have been brought out in its sequence.

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, I didn’t have a chance to question him on it. I think the questions were coming from Honourable Members so I didn’t have an opportunity of leading that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

We didn’t have the time to write down what you said to the deceased before you hit him. Do you understand? Carefully tell us what you said to him.

MR HLENGWA: Before I hit him, I told him that the truth was, the reason we’re taking him was, we needed him as a person who was taking Stoffel from the meeting, and left with him. After that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Slowly. So you told him that he had taken Stoffel away from the meeting. Now proceed. And then?

MR HLENGWA: I told him the truth as to why I was taking him. There was no camp which I was taking him to. The truth was we needed to discuss with him, and there and then I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it that you said to us, that you told him that he had taken Stoffel away from the meeting? You remember saying that to us?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on from there. So you said to him, "...We are going to kill you because you took Stoffel away from the meeting."?

MR HLENGWA: I’m trying to explain it. At that time there wasn’t much which we’ve discussed with him, because we were in a hurry. We wanted to do what we intended to do.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve reached a stage ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve reached a stage where I asked you whether you said anything to him before you hit him. Now you say you had told him while you were walking with him the reason why you were taking him. You said, "...Because he took Stoffel away from the meeting."

Mr HLENGWA: And then people were killed after Stoffel was taken from the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR HLENGWA: We proceeded with him. I told him that I didn’t like what happened to our members, ANC members, and I told him that today it was his day, he was supposed to suffer the same pain we’ve suffered, and then I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not ask him to explain, if you suspected that he had done something wrong, was he not given a chance to explain? He may have had a good explanation.

MR HLENGWA: There was just no time for me to ask him because I’ve already reached a decision.

CHAIRPERSON: So you killed a man without even affording him a chance to say what might be the truth?

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted).

CHAIRPERSON: You killed a man without giving him a chance to tell you what might be the truth?

MR HLENGWA: We didn’t think that he was going to tell the truth. We didn’t trust him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that’s not the question you see. You take a man’s life because you believe he had done something, and you don’t give him a chance to explain to you. Is that what you did?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Be careful.

MR SAMUEL: Did you tell him that you suspected him of being a spy for the IFP?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we told him. I told him that he was a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR HLENGWA: These were my last words. I told him that he was a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON: And without giving him a chance to answer your allegation you just struck him down?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And after he fell down, what happened next?

MR HLENGWA: After he fell down my colleagues started stabbing him. They had knives and tomahawk and spears. Spears.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you join in, in stabbing him?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I helped them.

CHAIRPERSON: You seemed to have great hesitation in answering.

MR HLENGWA: No, I’m not hesitating. I thought you told me that I mustn’t talk loud, I must talk softly.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you shoot him with a gun as well, besides stabbing him?

MR HLENGWA: No, I didn’t shoot him. I only hit him with the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what happened after you all stabbed him. Did you leave him lying there?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we left him lying there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Samuel, sometimes it’s a bit painful to extract a story in sequential order. Do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Now, was there anyone else who witnessed this killing of Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I will say yes, that there was someone else who witnessed this, but I personally didn’t see the person and if I think about it, or if I have to think about it, I think it was someone who saw this and she was passing and it was a female who happened to be my girlfriend.

MR SAMUEL: Now the three people with you, were they also ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted)

MR SAMUEL: The three men with you, were they charged in the criminal trial?

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON: When were you arrested?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t understand, I’ve been asked two questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry. Your lawyer asked you whether the other three were charged for the murder of the deceased. Is that right?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, they were charged, but the Court released them. They didn’t sentence them, or they were not found guilty.

MR SAMUEL: Now of the three, that is Temba Manci, Tembano Lethuli, and Boy Raymond Khoza, which of the three participated in the attack on the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: Manci participated, and Boy Khoza. Honestly I’ll be lying if I say Luthuli participated. He was there but he didn’t do anything.

ADV DE JAGER: And he knew you were going to kill the man? You’ve planned it before, and he went with you?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: You were convicted of this offence, what sentence did you receive?

MR HLENGWA: Fifteen years.

MR SAMUEL: On what date were you sentenced?

MR HLENGWA: April 13, 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: At about what time of day or night was the deceased killed?

MR HLENGWA: I will just estimate, because I’m not sure, I think it was between seven and eight.

CHAIRPERSON: How is it that your girlfriend happened to see this? Where did she suddenly appear from to see all this?

MR HLENGWA: She was going to my place where I was staying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but what was she doing on the road where you were taking the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON: What was she doing on the road that you were taking the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: It is a road she was just passing, she was going to my place, but she didn’t pass. I found her in Court and she explained in Court as to what was happening on that day. That’s when it came apparent to me she was going to my place and when seeing this she stopped and watched.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the deceased related to your girlfriend?

MR HLENGWA: I am not sure whether he is her father or her brother, but they are from one family. It’s similar names, surnames.

CHAIRPERSON: You puzzle me when you say that. You don’t even know whether this was your girlfriend’s father or brother. Are you telling us the truth?

MR HLENGWA: I am saying the truth is they are from one family. I don’t know whether she is referring to him as a father or a brother.

MR SAMUEL: So when you are saying father do you mean that he is her, he is married to her mother, or are you saying that she regards him as a father and not, as opposed to a brother?

MR HLENGWA: The surnames are similar and they are in one area, that’s where they are staying. I think they are related, something like uncle and cousin, somewhere along the line.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, you say that he could be the father, he could be the brother, he could be the uncle, he could be the cousin. You didn’t know?

MR HLENGWA: What I’m trying to explain is that I don’t know whether he was my girlfriend’s uncle. In Zulu when you say uncle you mean your father’s brother, therefore the names are similar, not that uncle on the other side. There’s a difference in Zulu and English. The surnames are similar.

CHAIRPERSON: That night, after the killing of the deceased, you went home?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we all went home.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw your girlfriend there?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I found her at my place.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell her that you killed one of her relatives?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I told her. I told her what happened, and then she said she saw what happened, but we didn’t see her.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take the adjournment at this stage and resume in fifteen minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

SIKULU PATRICK HLENGWA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Samuel, please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: (Continued) Thank you Mr Mhlango. Is there anything that you would like to say to the, Mr Mbeko’s family, for the act that you committed?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, there is.

MR SAMUEL: You may take this opportunity of doing that.

MR HLENGWA: I would like to say to the family and the relatives of Mbeko that I am here today to apologise to them for my actions, and I took the law in my hands, and I’m asking them to please forgive me. It was because of the situation at Umgababa. IFP and ANC were in conflict. Even our minds were not working very well. Therefore I would please like them to forgive me.

MR SAMUEL: I have no further questions, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Mr Hlengwa, you stated at the start of your evidence this morning that, "the area was predominantly IFP, we fought for a long time," that you didn’t want the area to be IFP but eventually you said that, "some of us were no longer liked by the ANC and then joined the IFP." Could you clarify this? What do you mean when you say that, "some of us were no longer liked by the ANC."?

MR HLENGWA: I would like you to repeat that question because it’s a long question. I can’t understand some of the fact you’ve asked.

MS PATEL: Okay. You said in your evidence earlier that some of the ANC members had moved over to the IFP because they were no longer liked by the ANC. Do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA: You say they were no longer liked?

MS PATEL: Yes, that is what you said this morning.

MR HLENGWA: I don’t remember using the word liked. What I remember saying is that I said Stoffel moved from ANC to IFP. Maybe you’ve made a mistake there.

MS PATEL: No, your evidence was very specific. You said that some of us were no longer liked by the ANC.

MR HLENGWA: No, I don’t remember that. I didn’t say that and I think you’ve made a mistake when you wrote this or maybe the interpreter interpreted wrongly. I don’t remember saying so.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s leave it on the basis that the last is a possibility.

MS PATEL: Yes, certainly, Honourable Chairperson. Can I ask, you know at the first meeting where a decision was taken that you would defend yourselves because the IFP was attacking members of your party?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: You said that Joe Ngema was present at this meeting, that he was a leader. Can I ask whether the question ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Was the question of specific targets discussed, or was it just a general mandate given to the members?

MR HLENGWA: There were no specific names mentioned. It was generally IFP because they were the ones attacking us, not specific names.

MS PATEL: Okay. Then you say that after Stoffel had stopped attending your meetings, you experienced problems with the IFP. Can I ask whether that, my question to you is, the problems that you experienced after he left, were they greater than the problems that you experienced before he left?

CHAIRPERSON: Or were they different?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s correct.

MS PATEL: Can you elaborate please? Would you like to amplify on that?

MR HLENGWA: After he left it was a usual thing that every morning there will be houses will be attacked the previous night.

MS PATEL: Was Stoffel the only person who had stopped coming to the ANC meetings?

MR HLENGWA: It was just Stoffel. He was the only one who stopped.

MS PATEL: Okay. The decision to bring Stoffel to a meeting, you stated that you had gone to look for him because, you were sent out to look for him because you knew where he stayed, and you knew the route that he took.

MR HLENGWA: I volunteered, that’s what I said. I wasn’t chosen by anyone. I volunteered from that group and I said I was going to go alone to fetch Stoffel, because I was scared that if we go as a group they were going to recognise us and attack us, therefore I volunteered to go alone to fetch him. Then also I wanted to protect other members. I didn’t want other members to get injured as well. I said if I was going to be injured let it be just me, not everyone from my group or organisation.

MS PATEL: Alright, given that you knew where he stayed, and what his movements were, can you explain why you advanced as a reason that Mr Mbeko only was choses as a target at the subsequent meeting? The reason you advanced was because you didn’t know where to get hold of Stoffel. Can you explain?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t understand your questioning. If you can please ask me one question at a time.

MS PATEL: You stated, when you were questioned as to why only Mr Mbeko was chosen as a target, you said, and not Mr Stoffel as well, you said because you didn’t know where to find Mr Stoffel. Do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I do remember.

MS PATEL: But the fact of the matter is that you knew where to find Stoffel because you found him on the previous occasion.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I knew where he was staying, but at the time, after he was taken from that meeting, in his place there was no-one, no single member of his family. Therefore he was no longer staying in that house.

MS PATEL: How do you know that he was no longer staying at the house?

MR HLENGWA: I’ve explained before that Stoffel’s’ place or house is in an area where it’s predominantly ANC. His house was among our houses. When I’m at my place I can see Stoffel’s house.

MS PATEL: But the decision to kill Mr Mbeko, as I understand it, was taken on the same day that the attack from the IFP members who had come from the direction of the school, had taken place, not so?

MR HLENGWA: That’s not true. It didn’t happen the same day.

MS PATEL: So when exactly did it happen?

MR HLENGWA: IFP members attached, and then after about two weeks, that’s when Mbeko was killed. It wasn’t the same day. It didn’t happen on the same day.

MS PATEL: No, the question doesn’t relate to when he was killed, it relates to the date of the decision to kill him. That took place on the same day that the IFP supporters had attacked people in your area.

MR HLENGWA: Now I understand. We met after we were attacked, and we took a decision that we were supposed to do something about what they were doing to us, and our decision was we were supposed to attack them.

MS PATEL: So you met immediately after you were attacked, or during, close to that period, not so?

MR HLENGWA: The very same day we met. The day of the attack, we met later.

MS PATEL: So how did you know, at that stage, that Mr Stoffel was no longer at his place of residence? Because the decision not to kill him was taken on the same day?

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a decision not to kill Stoffel?

MS PATEL: Well, there was a decision to kill only Mr Mbeko.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but no decision was taken not to kill Stoffel.

MS PATEL: But with respect, Honourable Chairperson, when the applicant was questioned as to why the decision wasn’t taken to kill both of them, he explained that they didn’t know where to find them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but they didn’t take a decision that they will not kill Stoffel.

MS PATEL: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MS PATEL: My question remains, that at the stage the decision was made to kill Mr Mbeko, you didn’t know that Mr Stoffel would not be at his place of residence, or that he could not be found?

CHAIRPERSON: Didn’t he say that he could see Stoffel’s house from his house and came to the conclusion that Stoffel was not there?

MS PATEL: But ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I’ve got an idea that they had that meeting in the afternoon after the attack. The meeting took no decision on that day. "...Thereafter I and Joe Ngema met. We discussed that and we decided on of them, Mr Mbeko, should be killed." But it was very difficult to take ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Could I ask you, the meeting with Mr Ngema, where Mr Ngema and you decided that Mr Mbeko should be killed, when was that decision taken? Was it immediately after the meeting with the other ANC supporters or members, or was it some time after? Was it a few days after that you met alone with Mr Ngema?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t understand the question very well. It is really confusing me. I don’t know when to answer the question because sometimes you are talking together and now I don’t know which meeting you are referring to. What are you referring to, the first one or the last one? If you can please clarify your question for me?

ADV DE JAGER: Could I perhaps help? I don’t know whether you’ve been on the correct wavelength there. Because if you listen to one wavelength you will hear both the English and the Zulu coming through together, so I don’t know if he’s on wavelength 2 or 4 or which one.

MR HLENGWA: I do understand what you’re saying. I do hear what you’re saying, it’s just that I don’t understand exactly what your question wants of me.

MS PATEL: Let me put it in sequence for you. This meeting in the morning. Listen to me carefully please. There’s a meeting in the morning where Mr Stoffel is taken by your to the field, right?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Mr Mbeko then comes and asks for, and takes Mr Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Later in the day there’s an attack by the IFP members, upon members of your community.

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

MS PATEL: Then after, the same day, later that afternoon, there is a meeting with you together with members of the ANC about the attack?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: After that you have a meeting with Mr Joe Ngema alone, where it is decided that Mr Mbeko will be killed.

MR HLENGWA: ...(not interpreted).

MS PATEL: Now that last meeting between yourself and Mr Ngema, how long, or when exactly did that meeting take place? Did it take place on the same day that all the other meetings took place that I have just spoken about, or was it some days after?

MR HLENGWA: Now I do understand. We met with Mr Joe Ngema on the same day, the same day of the attack.

MS PATEL: If that is so, how would you have known on that very same day that Mr Stoffel would not be found

MR HLENGWA: When I discussed this with Joe Ngema the decision wasn’t going to be carried on the same day. On that day it was just vocal, we were talking about it, or we were planning it. I was the one who told our leader that we were supposed to take actions because these people were attacking us. It wasn’t, we didn’t decide there and there that the attack should be carried on that day.

MS PATEL: Are you saying now also that Mr Ngema didn’t decide on that day that Mr Mbeko should be killed? Or are you saying that the attack shouldn’t be carried out? What are you saying? I don’t understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I think his evidence was that they decided that the deceased should be killed.

MS PATEL: Is he not retracting that now, Honourable Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Well my ...(indistinct) is that they decided, they didn’t say when.

MR HLENGWA: We didn’t say then. What we said was we came to the decision that he was supposed to be killed.

MS PATEL: And can you explain, I think I’m getting a bit confused, can you explain again why Mr Stoffel, why you didn’t take a decision about Mr Stoffel as well, on that same day? Because he was clearly identified as one of the attackers in the group that morning that had attacked the community.

MR HLENGWA: It is like this, when we found Stoffel, we were going to kill Stoffel because of what he had already done to us, but he wasn’t our big problem cause we knew as to how to find him if we were serious as members, but this one, Mr Mbeko, he was still with us, therefore that’s why we decided that we were going to kill him.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I still don’t understand why you were making a distinction between Stoffel and the deceased. What difference was there in your minds?

MR HLENGWA: Sorry?

ADV SIGODI: What difference was there in your mind about the position of Stoffel and the deceased. Didn’t you say that ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: Let me explain this. Between Stoffel and myself Mbeko took Stoffel and then later we were attacked. It wasn’t easy for us to go where Stoffel was because he was already been taken by Mbeko to the IFP supporters, therefore it was going to be difficult for us to go to the IFP and take Stoffel, but it was going to be easy for us to take Mbeko, or to attack Mbeko.

ADV SIGODI: So just to clarify that, you are saying that Mbeko was a bigger problem than Stoffel because he was still part of the organisation and is one who was taking people from the organisation and taking them over to the IFP. Just wait until I am finished.

MR HLENGWA: If you can please listen to me very carefully, what I’m trying to say is that among the ANC members there was no-one who was pushing members to go and join IFP. We didn’t even know what a person has decided, but we would see this being later, that they have already betrayed us. They were already members of the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you kill Mr Mbeko because he intervened and saved Mr Stoffel’s life?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, Mrs Mbeko, the wife of Mr Mbeko was killed, have made a statement saying that she and Mr Mbeko was supporters of the UDF. That they even could not sleep at their house, because they feared that the IFP would kill them. Would you say that could be true?

MR HLENGWA: I wouldn’t say it’s true. Because I don’t know this.

CHAIRPERSON: May I now ask a question? At the meeting where Stoffel was present, you’ve told us that the deceased arrived and asked whether he could take Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA: I would like you to repeat this.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m talking about the time when the deceased came to the meeting and took Stoffel away from there, whilst Stoffel was being questioned. I’m talking about that time, you understand?

MR HLENGWA: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: So the meeting agreed, and allowed the deceased to take Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: They had no objection to the deceased taking Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA: There was no objection, cause we thought that he was going to bring him back.

CHAIRPERSON: You may have thought that. He didn’t say that he would bring him back?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So the meeting trusted the deceased when he was allowed to take Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA: The way he took him, we thought that since he was an older person to us he was going to bring him back. We didn’t think that he was taking him forever.

CHAIRPERSON: Up to that stage there was no reason to suspect that the deceased was a secret member of another organisation?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, at that time we didn’t suspect anything.

CHAIRPERSON: So what evidence is there for believing that he, the deceased, was an informer or a member of the IFP, for you to want to kill him

MR HLENGWA: As members of ANC the only evidence we had it was because the deceased didn’t bring back Stoffel and same time we were attacked before the next day, and they disappeared. We didn’t see them and we were attacked on the very same day. And they disappeared. They were no longer like members of the community. That’s when we realised that he was also with Stoffel or IFP. This is what we thought.

CHAIRPERSON: So a man was killed because he did not bring Stoffel back to the meeting? That’s it, isn’t it?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, it’s like that, that’s correct. We killed him, or we came to that decision because we were angry that he didn’t bring back Stoffel and also we were attacked on the same day. We didn’t understand really, we took this as his actions or he was behind this whole thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you admit all that happened was that day Stoffel was seen by you to be among the attackers, isn’t that so?

MR HLENGWA: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: So Stoffel left no doubt in your mind that he was on the other side when he attacked?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct. His action was saying so.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right. And yet you murdered a man without asking him why he didn’t bring Stoffel back. Isn’t that so?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen carefully because I want to write that down. Yes

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. M Hlengwa, do you recall having written a letter to the Amnesty Committee, setting out the circumstances ...?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Alright. Let me read to you an extract from the letter that you sent us. For the record, Honourable Chairperson, page 8 of the bundle. This is what you said to us happened at the camp. You said

"I had to hand him over to the ANC STU’s in the camp."

Now him, you are referring to Stoffel, right? You’re saying:

"At the camp we were intending to kill him, but unfortunately his brother-in-law Mr Shangani Mbeko, he forbidding his killing by saying what he had done it was his first mistake."

Right? Then:

"Mr Ngcobo, he was released."

So it’s not, do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Why have you told us now, then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ask him if what he agrees with what he said.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike was not on. What’s the question?

MS PATEL: Do you agree that that is what you had said, in your letter?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Do you agree that that is different to what you are telling us now?

MR HLENGWA: Actually that, the statements that I made here in the TRC, I think I made three of them, were wrote to Bloemfontein and then we were sent ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Will you please ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: We first wrote to Bloemfontein if I am not mistaken, and then we were told ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Mr Hlengwa would you please ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Please don’t answer, don’t make a wrong answer. You were asked a special question. What is said on Page 8 differs from what you have said here, and you are asked to explain why that difference.

MR HLENGWA: That I have said now is not the same as the one I actually, I initially made, is that what you’re saying?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR HLENGWA: Where is the difference?

MS PATEL: You’ve told us here in your evidence today that Mr Mbeko came there and he took Mr Stoffel away, and the reason that Mr Mbeko was killed subsequently was because he had taken Mr Mbeko away without there having been a discussion.

MR HLENGWA: Taken Mbeko or Stoffel?

MS PATEL: Sorry, Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA: I think I indicated that even in the first statement that, in order that Mbeko was killed it was because he took Stoffel and he said it’s because he’s the brother-in-law, and I think I’ve said that even now. Maybe you did not write that down.

MS PATEL: Now let me say to you what you’ve stated in your letter to us. In your letter to us you say that the reason you let Mr Stoffel go was because Mr Mbeko had come there and that, you know, it’s the first time that Stoffel had made a mistake and so he should be given some leniency and that is why you had agreed to let him go. Now there’s a difference, Mr Hlengwa, between, wait let me finish please, there’s a difference between you all agreeing to let Stoffel go, and what you have said to us, that is, that Mr Mbeko came and took Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA: I put it like this. If I think well what is said today about this crime, it’s been years and I’ve been in gaol. Perhaps what I’m saying even now, and some of the things that I’ve left out, it would be that I’m forgetful, so that I don’t explain in a sequence, because this was done, this happened long ago, long time ago. Since 1991. As a result I cannot cram a lot of things and put them in my mind at the same time.

So by highlighting what the main points, what the highlights, it’s been a long time to explain the sequence as it is. Because it might happen that as we’re talking now and it might happen that I remember something, that I’ve left out something, and perhaps we have already passed that place we are now ahead.

ADV DE JAGER: But six months ago you made this statement, that you’ve been referred to. October 1998, you made this statement which you’ve been referred to, that you agreed to release Stoffel because it was his first mistake, and Mr Mbeko pleaded with you to give him a chance.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I’m saying that. However, I said that, The way Mr Mbeko took Stoffel it was like that, he did take him, and he was speaking as a, indicated that its’ his first mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: So the meeting agreed to give him a chance. To give Stoffel a chance, and they allowed him to go.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, he left with him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the point is not he left with him. The meeting agreed to let him go, that’s the point. Is that not so?

MR HLENGWA: What you are trying to say is that the entire membership of ANC agreed to that, is that what you’re saying?

CHAIRPERSON: I’m reading from your statement that at that meeting when the deceased said that this was Stoffel’s first mistake, he should be given a chance. The meeting then agreed and allowed Stoffel to go. That’s how it is written here.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, we did agree in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: So now if that is so, why did you get angry with the deceased because he didn’t bring Stoffel back? According to your ...(indistinct) today.

MR HLENGWA: What made me angry, to be more angry, is that at their departure they did not come back and tell us what they have discussed and what has happened, and then we discovered that we are now being attacked.

ADV DE JAGER: So in fact you were really angry because Stoffel betrayed you and he attacked you that same afternoon? He didn’t use his chances given him.

MR HLENGWA: He didn’t use it.

ADV DE JAGER: Now our problem is, we can understand that you were cross with Stoffel, but why didn’t ou then go and kill Stoffel? Why did you decide to kill Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: At that time that we can kill Stoffel after he had already left, it wasn’t easy for us to kill him, because even at his home he wasn’t staying there. We wouldn’t actually find him there at his home because he was already on the other side, on the IFP side at that particular point in time.

ADV DE JAGER: So you couldn’t find Stoffel so you decided to kill Mbeko because Mbeko was still nearby?

MR HLENGWA: We took that decision.

ADV DE JAGER: I follow that. That afternoon you went to the shebeen and you had drinks there?

MR HLENGWA: In actual fact myself, I did not drink liquor, but the people that I was with, they did get liquor in the shebeen.

ADV DE JAGER: So your three companions got liquor but you didn’t have liquor.

MR HLENGWA: Yes, and even amongst them, if my memory serves me well, it was about one or two beers, because Khoza doesn’t drink the liquor. It was Manci and Nontumbi.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you go to the shebeen? What do you want to find out, or do, there?

MR HLENGWA: Our aim at the shebeen was that, because it was a Friday and mostly the guys normally go there and we would meet there, and in that he also came.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that an ANC frequented shebeen, or an IFP, or members of both parties came to this place?

MR HLENGWA: I’ll explain it like this, in that shebeen it was an area you would actually see a lot of things that were happening from that area, but it was the area that was on top and we could see everything. Now most people used to go there, and because even selling there, the owner of the shebeen was not really selling in actual fact. It was actually the area because there are people who normally arrive at that place.

ADV DE JAGER: I understand you can’t answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so far as I’m concerned, I come to your assistance, as far as, when you went there you regarded that as a social visit to the shebeen. That was the purpose of your visit?

MR HLENGWA: I didn’t even have money to go and socialise, so it’s not the truth that I went to socialise. I was going there to find this person.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s the answer. You went there to find the person, which person?

MR HLENGWA: The deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

You made a statement shortly after you were arrested, in which you set out the circumstances of this incident, and you stated that you hit the deceased with a stick, and you go further and you say I remember this although I was drunk. Do you remember saying that? Do you still maintain ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: ... (not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this statement?

MS PATEL: If you refer to page 39, Honourable Chairperson, of the bundle, it’s referred to in the judgment. Do you still maintain sir that you weren’t drunk, that you had nothing to drink?

MR HLENGWA: I still maintain that at that particular point in time I wasn’t drunk.

MS PATEL: And you didn’t buy any beers, there was no argument between you and the owner of the shebeen? ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: ..(no English interpretation)

MS PATEL: Let me finish please. Can I finish first please. There was no argument between yourself and the owner of the shebeen regarding payment for beers? You wanted three beers and you only had money for two. You don’t recall that?

MR HLENGWA: No. In that statement I did not enter into any argument with the shebeen owner.

MS PATEL: And you had absolutely nothing to drink?

MR HLENGWA: Yes. I agreed to that to the police because of the way they were questioning me, the police, what I put forward to them was not the truth.

MS PATEL: But why lie about being drunk? What difference does that make to anything? How did that make it easier for you? I don’t understand.

MR HLENGWA: By talking about being drunk it was the first time that I have done. I’ve heard initial, previously, that if you are drunk you wouldn’t get that much difficulty in Court if you said that you were drunk.

MS PATEL: But you’ve admitted hitting the deceased. You admit that the deceased was stabbed, so how did it make it easier for you? You’d already admitted ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think there’s an extenuating circumstances in some cases where evidence of drinking assists as a mitigating factor. I think that is what he’s trying to explain. I think we should move on.

MS PATEL: Alright, Honourable Chairperson. You stated that, I’m sorry can you just confirm did you stab the deceased as well? Or did you just hit him on the head with the firearm that you had?

MR HLENGWA: I hit at him with the gun and I took a tomahawk and then hit at him while he was lying down.

MS PATEL: And you say the rest of the people there assisted in you assaulting the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Except Luthuli?

MR HLENGWA: Yes.

MS PATEL: Okay, did Manci also stab the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: Yes indeed.

MS PATEL: He denied that at the trial.

CHAIRPERSON: That wouldn’t be too surprising.

MS PATEL: His evidence was also accepted, Honourable Chairperson. He was in fact found not guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I don’t think that his applicant can be burdened with anything which another accused may have said about himself.

MS PATEL: Alright I’ll move on Honourable Chairperson. Just one final thing that I want to clear up with you, and that is that you’ve stated that Mr Ngema gave you instructions, or authorised this murder.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think he and Ngema decided. Isn’t that what he said. Ngema was the leader of the organisation.

MS PATEL: In his further particulars to us, Honourable Chairperson, he stated, let me just, he says on page 8, Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 4

"I got it from my commander that I should kill..."

Is that used or kill?

MR HLENGWA: It’s used. It’s

"The gun I got it from my commander that I used to kill Mr Mhlango."

MS PATEL: My apologies, Honourable Chairperson, I misread that.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mr Ngema give you the gun to kill Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: That gun was usually carried by me, yes it was given by him. It was always been with me. It has always been with me, that gun.

ADV DE JAGER: So he didn’t give you the gun only for the purpose of going to kill Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: No, he gave me it to protect the members of ANC.

MS PATEL: Just to clarify what I perceive to be an inconsistency. You stated to us that you and Joe Ngema made the decision alone together. Yet in your statement to us you’ve stated that

"We, the Self Defence Unit, together with our commander, we took a decision to kill the deceased."

That’s page 8 as well, your Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 5. So what is the correct position?

MR SAMUEL: Sorry your Honourable Chairperson, I don’t mean to intervene here, but there seems to be two things he told us about the meeting with Mr Ngema. When he was questioned by the Honourable Member he said he met with Mr Ngema. When he was questioned by my learned colleague, Ms Patel, he indicated that,"...met with Mr Ngema" so I’m not sure whether ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said the two of them met.

MR SAMUEL: No that was when the Honourable Member questioned him. When Ms Patel questioned him, he said: "we met with Mr Ngema after we were attacked on the same day."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well the word we can clear it up because sometimes these words are used loosely. Put your question Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. You’ve stated to us here, let me just take you back again. You’ve stated to us here that the Self Defence Unit together with the commander took the decision. Yet you’ve told us in your evidence today that it was only you and Joe Ngema who took the decision.

MR HLENGWA: I will explain. I think I was, it is the same Joe that I am referring to. It is the same Joe that I am referring to.

ADV DE JAGER: Aren’t we sort of taking time out with something that may be common cause? In paragraph 15 of the widow’s affidavit, she states, the second-last sentence

"Blackmail Ngema said that the people who were at my house have fulfilled their will. He then explained that my husband had been killed."

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) that their will may have become accepted by others, but the decision, whether the decision was take by the Self Defence Unit, or by him and Ngema. It met with the approval after the act was done yes. Now the question that was being put to you was, you see we get too versions. I took a note that you and Ngema met and you took a decision to kill the deceased. Then in this paragraph to which ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) to which Ms Patel refers you, she says that the Self Defence Unit together with our commander took the decision to kill the deceased. Now which of that is correct?

MR HLENGWA: What do you really mean? Are you still explaining? Do you want me to explain about Joe, comrade Ngema, or what? I don’t quite get your question.

CHAIRPERSON: We’re not talking about ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about whether you met Mr Ngema and decided this with him, or whether the Self Defence Unit met Mr Ngema and decided to kill the deceased.

MR HLENGWA: It’s myself and Mr Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

INTERPRETER: Sir, he says Itina, as if we say it’s a plural. Can you just clarify it with him if it was just him and Mr Ngema, the two of them, or if there were other people, that is the Self Defence Unit and Mr Ngema who took that decision to kill.

MR HLENGWA: The two of us, myself and Mr Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Is that all?

MS PATEL: There’s just one final thing, Honourable Chairperson. I refer you to the statement of the wife of the deceased, Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 14 to 16. If you say that Mr Ngema authorised, or Mr Ngema was in agreement that Mr Mbeko be killed, perhaps you can explain this to me. The wife of the deceased stated, said in a statement, that they hadn’t slept at home that Friday evening because they were afraid of IFP attacks.

The next morning Mr Ngema comes to the house where she is staying, and he looks for the, she says that on his arrival he asked as to where were Mr Mbeko’s sons.

INTERPRETER: Sorry, where, what?

MS PATEL: Mr Mbeko’s sons, his children. The wife then goes on to explain to Mr Ngema about the incident that had taken place at the house on the Friday night where you had sent the other men in to look for Mr Mbeko.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you’re very convoluted. What is the point that you wish to draw from that paragraph?

MS PATEL: The point is, Honourable Chairperson, that it is improbable that the person who was in agreement with the killing of the deceased would in fact, in the morning then go and look for the wife and then take her to point out to the place where the body was. If he was party to the decision to kill he wouldn’t have gone near the family. And that is my point, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That Ngema wasn’t a party to take the decision to kill the deceased.

MS PATEL: Yes, exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, a statement has been made by the widow the deceased. Among other things, it would appear from that statement that Ngema, who you say took the decision with you to kill the deceased, goes to the house of the deceased, and talks to the widow of the deceased, about the deceased. Now if he was responsible for killing the deceased, why would he go to her house?

MR HLENGWA: I wouldn’t know, because he went there alone, he wasn’t with me.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

ADV SIGODI: Do you know where Mr Ngema is today?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, I do.

ADV SIGODI: Where is he?

MR HLENGWA: In prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

The lady, the widow of the deceased, also says in this statement, that Mr Ngema said to her that the people that came to the house, that means you and the other three, carried out their will. That means Mr Ngema’s will or the ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, if I may intervene, the their may refer not to Mr Ngema’s will but the will of the person who had visited the home of the deceased the night before.

CHAIRPERSON: There would be room for argument, you know, it depends on how this statement was taken down, and by whom, and so on, but you may put the question in the form in which this thing is worded.

MR SAMUEL: She says that Mr Ngema said that they had carried out their will. Do you know who Mr Ngema was referred to?

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn’t know because he wasn’t there with Ngema. When Ngema went to the house of the deceased he went alone.

MR SAMUEL: I withdraw that question, Honourable Chairperson. Now, I just want to take you back to two aspects of your evidence. Firstly, when Stoffel returned with the IFP members and attacked you, after the meeting at which he left with the deceased, was the deceased with you defending yourselves? Was he to be seen at the time of the attack?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t understand, are you asking me?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The deceased was not there among the attackers. No mention is made about the deceased being there among the attackers.

MR SAMUEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I want to know was he there as one of the people being attacked? Let me put this in a sequence that you will find easier to understand. After Mr Mbeko, the deceased, and Mr Stoffel left, the meeting dispersed, and you came back into your area. Amongst the attackers you saw Mr Stoffel and other IFP members. Where was the deceased at that time?

MR HLENGWA: I didn’t see the deceased.

MR SAMUEL: Was his house close to your house?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, it’s close.

MR SAMUEL: If he had been at home, would he have come out of his house in response to the attack?

CHAIRPERSON: If it is conjecture. He may have been very well. I don’t know, you can talk about what would have happened if he had been at home. I don’t think that that is material.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson I’m going to argue later that the suspicions against Mr Mbeko stemmed from the entire incident.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you’ll have to convince us that all the other ANC members were there, yes, and we don’t know whether each and every ANC members joined the group that was fighting, or defending, against the IFP, we’ve got no evidence of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Lots of others may not have been there at the time of the attack. The attack may have been a surprise.

MR SAMUEL: The point, Honourable Chairperson, that I make, is that other members didn’t take Mr Stoffel away on that day, so.

CHAIRPERSON: Other members agreed to Stoffel being taken away.

MR SAMUEL: May I have your consent to explore this?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. Did you see Mr Mbeko during the attack or after the attack by the IFP members.

MR HLENGWA: No, I didn’t. The last time I saw him was when he took Stoffel.

MR SAMUEL: Now when there’s an attack in the area, what do the men generally do in that area when you’re being attacked.

MR HLENGWA: We used to try to defend ourselves, but they were quite in numbers compared to us. They used to overpower us. We usually ran away. They used to say they were going to chase us to the seas.

MR SAMUEL: Was there anyone from Mr Mbeko’s household that was attacked on the day Mr Stoffel went away from the meeting

MR HLENGWA: Which day you are referring?

MR SAMUEL: The day that Mr Stoffel was taken away from the meeting by Mr Mbeko. On that day, the attack that followed, did those attackers attack any member of Mr Mbeko’s family?

MR HLENGWA: No, I don’t remember, I don’t think there was one member who was attacked.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they attack your family?

MR HLENGWA: In my family, the rest of the members had ran away. They’ve ran away for shelter like in Umlazi, so I don’t ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: And you don’t know whether Mr Mbeko’s family also fled on that day?

MR HLENGWA: I wouldn’t know, because his neighbours’ houses were burnt down and some of his neighbours, the women, were injured.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that’s as far as you can take this point really.

MR SAMUEL: That’s correct, Honourable Chairperson, I’ll move to the next point. I want to take you back to that meeting that you had, where you brought Mr Stoffel to this meeting. What was your purpose in bringing Mr Stoffel there? What did you want to do with Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: When I took Stoffel to the meeting we wanted to interrogate him. We wanted to ascertain from him why was it so that he was with us sometimes, before he was with us many times, and then he disappeared from our meetings or disappeared from us, and the reasons were that if we ascertained that he was a member of IFP we were going to kill him

MR SAMUEL: Now, did you get a chance to interrogate him?

MR HLENGWA: We didn’t get much time to interrogate him because we were disturbed by the deceased, cause the deceased appeared and took him and he said that he was his in-law, he wanted to talk to him. They disappeared. They never came back, and then later we attacked.

MR SAMUEL: Now the confusion that may arise here, and you must perhaps explain this, is you were asked did the meeting agree to let Mr Stoffel go? Now, when you said that, were you’re saying that the meeting agreed to release him and no deal with him any further, or did you agree that the meeting agreed to let him go with Mr Mbeko to have the talk?

MR HLENGWA: The reason was that Mr Mbeko was going to talk to him and he was going to bring him back and we were going to continue and interrogate him.

ADV DE JAGER: So you said the meeting agreed to give him a chance because this was his first mistake. That’s what you answered to us, to me, when I asked you. Now you’re coming with a different thing again.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think any amount of questioning, ever, will get that right.

MR SAMUEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, I think a lot is being lost here in the translation, to the extent that when, I was listening intently to his answers, the words that were being used ‘let him go’ and I didn’t want to intervene at that stage because my learned colleague was cross-examining. It was, it could be, the meeting agreed to let him go out of the meeting, or release him. At that stage the word release was not used, and therefore I’m seeking this opportunity of clearing that up.

CHAIRPERSON: He said in page 8, in his own handwriting, the second paragraph, in the middle of the second paragraph

"He was released."

In the middle of that paragraph on page 8, the second paragraph. You see that, yes? Those are his words.

MR SAMUEL: Yes I do understand that, Honourable Chairperson, but we’re dealing with a person here whose first language is not, unfortunately, English, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We might be able to then question the entire statement ...(indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR SAMUEL: The difficulty I have is that my instructions are somewhat different ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Put your instructions to him.

MR SAMUEL: Now, is it not your instructions to me that he, Mr Mbeko, asked to speak to Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t think we’ll reach anything. That’s a leading question. Whatever he says on such a question. We understand the position, but I don’t think it says, if you really want to pursue it then you can’t clear the thing up by asking leading questions, then you’ll have to put it in such a manner that he could answer out of his own will.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in 1998, October, he makes a statement in which he used the word release. Whatever he told you was told you now. His evidence today differs from what he said in that statement. You’ve got two versions. Sometimes you can’t take it any further.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, but may I just have one final attempt at clearing this up, thank you.

MR HLENGWA: You misunderstand me Mr Hlengwa. The difficulty that the Committee is having is the decision that was taken by the meeting. Did it take a decision to say to Mr Stoffel, ‘You can now leave, but don’t do this again.’ Or did it say to Mr Stoffel, ‘You may go with and talk to Mr Mbeko.’?

MR HLENGWA: I will put it this way. When the deceased took him we trusted that they were not going anywhere. We didn’t take any major decisions because we didn’t think that they were going too far, or that they were not going to return. We thought they were going to be around.

MR SAMUEL: So what were they going to do? Why was it necessary for Mr Mbeko to take Mr Stoffel away from the meeting? What were they going to do outside the earshot of the meeting?

CHAIRPERSON: He wouldn’t know this. Mbeko tells them that, ‘look here, this man, this is his first mistake, give him a chance.’ And his words were, "...We decided to release him." Isn’t that his words?

MR SAMUEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that’s the end of the matter isn’t it? How does he know what was going to happen between Mbeko and the deceased?

MR SAMUEL: These people have been told that they have made a mistake

CHAIRPERSON: They were told he had made a mistake and this was his first mistake, and so they decided to release him.

MR SAMUEL: But, Honourable Chairperson it doesn’t make ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing ....(indistinct) happened if Stoffel hadn’t been involved in that attack that afternoon, the story might have been entirely different.

MR SAMUEL: But with respect, Honourable Chairperson, I’m saying that cannot be on the probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON: You can argue the probabilities.

MR SAMUEL: Let me say why I’m saying that, because they brought this person to interrogate him. They had not had an opportunity of interrogating him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. He didn’t say that they hadn’t had an opportunity of interrogating him, he said they didn’t have too much of an opportunity. In other words they were asking him, according to him, "...On which side are you. Are you with us or are you with the others?" Now I don’t know how long the interrogation could take place, but these were the questions that were put. But he said they didn’t have too much time because the deceased said: "he’s made a mistake, it’s his first mistake, give him a chance." So the meeting decides to release him.

Now, I don’t know what interpretation you can place on that. As to what happened between the deceased and Stoffel outside, I can’t imagine that this witness would know anything about it.

MR SAMUEL: I’m still saying that there’s two interpretations to his evidence, and if one goes through his evidence carefully one will see that there is two interpretations.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, I’m just trying to get certain other corroboratory features, sir, too. Now how long, for how long had you questioned Mr Stoffel before Mr Mbeko took him away from you, from all of you?

MR HLENGWA: It wasn’t too long.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it an hour, two hours, six hours, half a day, how long?

MR HLENGWA: I think it was about thirty minutes we arrived in that meeting and then Mr Mbeko came.

MR SAMUEL: What did you establish from Mr Stoffel, that was pertinent to your questions that you asked him?

MR HLENGWA: We were questioning him and I’ve already ascertained from him that the IFP people came and they took him, or they forced him to become a member of an IFP and this is why he was no longer ANC member.

MR SAMUEL: Were you happy with that answer that he gave?

MR HLENGWA: No, I wasn’t happy, because his explanation made us realise that he was an enemy to us.

MR SAMUEL: Why do you say that?

MR HLENGWA: I’m saying so because you just asked me a question if I was happy when he said so.

MR SAMUEL: Okay just one final question now Mr Hlengwa. If you knew that Mr Mbeko was going to take Mr Stoffel away from that meeting and not return, would you have allowed Mr Stoffel to go with Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: We were not going to allow him, if only we know that he wasn’t going to return him.

MR SAMUEL: I have no further questions, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Where is Stoffel now?

MR HLENGWA: After he joined IFP the IFP didn’t trust him and then they killed him. This is what we’ve discovered later, that he was referred to as a traitor so IFP could no longer trust him after they’d used him.

ADV SIGODI: What political objective did you think you are going to achieve by killing Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA: The decision of killing Mr Mbeko came because we could no longer trust him after what he’s done. He was going to bring Stoffel back and he didn’t. We as ANC people, we were fighting that our area should be ruled by ANC not IFP.

ADV SIGODI: And this distrust came only after he had taken Stoffel with him, and then there was this attack by the ANC? Otherwise before that you had trusted him completely?

MR HLENGWA: The situation was bad.

ADV SIGODI: Just answer yes or no.

MR HLENGWA: Had you trusted Mr Mbeko completely before he took Mr Stoffel with him? Answer just yes or no.

MR HLENGWA: No. I didn’t trust him at all.

ADV SIGODI: Why didn’t you trust him?

MR HLENGWA: We didn’t get time to sit down and talk before. I didn’t have much trust on him because I didn’t have time to speak to him.

ADV SIGODI: He had not done anything to betray the organisation before he took Stoffel with him?

MR HLENGWA: That’s correct.

ADV SIGODI: And now on this day he decides to take Stoffel with him, and then he disappears with him, and then there’s an attack by the IFP on the ANC, and suddenly there is this idea that he is also a betrayer of the ANC?

MR HLENGWA: Yes, that’s correct.

ADV SIGODI: You did not see him talking to IFP people at all, or liaising with them?

MR HLENGWA: I wouldn’t say I saw him with my eyes, because I wasn’t behind him, I wasn’t checking his movements. I wasn’t checking whether he was talking to IFP members or not.

ADV SIGODI: We’re trying to understand your justification for suspecting him to have betrayed the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his reason.

ADV SIGODI: And, one final answer. Didn’t you think or consider expelling him from the organisation, if at all he was part of the organisation, and you were scared that he was going to take information from the ANC to the IFP? Didn’t you consider that as an option that was expel him then it will deprive him of the information?

MR HLENGWA: No, we didn’t consider that because of the situation and the incidents which had already occurred in the ANC members. The IFP were killing them merciless.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you may stand down. Are you calling any other witnesses?

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR SAMUEL: No Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR SAMUEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the death of a certain Mr Mbeko who was killed on the 25th of January 1991. Although both were members of the UDF, which is affiliated to the ANC, the applicant has stated that there was a suspicion that the deceased was a spy for the IFP who, during that period, had conducted a reign of terror against the ANC members in the area. He has indicated that a number of members were killed, that he belonged to a Self Defence Unit which, whose function is well known to the Committee, for the purpose of the record, to defend themselves against the attacks by IFP members. He indicated that a decision was taken to kill IFP members but they were not lucky in doing that.

At some stage a former member, Stoffel, had stopped attending the ANC meetings, and coincidental, or perhaps not so coincidental with that occurrence, the raids on the ANC members in the area increased, and the hiding places of the ANC people became known to IFP people. The ANC then took a decision to interrogate and kill Stoffel if it was established that he was the spy for the IFP.

Stoffel was then brought to a meeting by the applicant and at that meeting he was in the process of being interrogated. And this is perhaps where there is two interpretations of what transpired. I will argue that the following is a more probable version, that whilst this meeting was being conducted the deceased arrived and made a plea on behalf of Stoffel, that this was his first mistake.

However, in the light of the circumstances, even if he had made one mistake in which ANC or UDF people were killed, the meeting was unlikely to forgive him for that, because life was already lost, lives were already lost, so no matter how much the deceased would have pleaded for the life of Stoffel, people who had lost their fellow comrades were not going to release him so willingly.

However, because they trusted the deceased, they allowed him, and perhaps the reason for that is maybe the deceased would have got more information from Stoffel than they could possibly get at that date. He left the meeting never to return.

ADV DE JAGER: But he asked to speak to this man. He’s leaving the meeting. They’re in a camp at Ziko, so they brought him there. They don’t want to release him so their eyes would be on him. Would they allow him to walk three kilometres or how far, in order to get away?

MR SAMUEL: What is clear is that they trusted the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: There’s the deceased taking him now and they’re walking away. They’re not standing a hundred yards away and talk to each other. They’re, in fact, they’re leaving the meeting now.

MR SAMUEL: Well we don’t know the terrain of this meeting, whether it was in a house where they went outside and ran away.

ADV DE JAGER: It’s at Ziko, they say a camp.

MR SAMUEL: It could well be that he went behind a few bushes and trees and had a chat and disappeared. We don’t know the actual terrain whether they could see three kilometres. What we do know is that the meeting trusted the deceased because he was an ANC member, and therefore they trusted him to have taken Stoffel and returned with him. And perhaps that is why they gave him so much opportunity before they went looking for him. Because that’s the amount of faith they had in the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s quite clear that up to that stage they had no reason to doubt the loyalty of the deceased.

MR SAMUEL: I fully agree with this. Up to that stage there’s not an iota of evidence to suggest that the deceased was in way but a loyal UDF supporter. In fact, it may well be that the deceased was always a loyal UDF supporter but he stepped in to save a relative, or stepped in to save a life, but the circumstances that presented itself thereafter, that they go back to the household and they’re attacked by, amongst others, Stoffel, and other IFP people, and the deceased doesn’t show himself on that day, neither does he show himself for the next two weeks. They have meetings which he should have attended as an ANC member, he’s not there. He doesn’t come up to them and give them an explanation as to what transpired. Surely, having taken him away, he should have returned to them and gave them an explanation as to why he didn’t return.

ADV SIGODI: But, there was an attack on ANC people on that day, wasn’t it? Can it not also be argued that he may have also ran away. We don’t know. The applicant himself didn’t know.

MR SAMUEL: Sure, it may well be that he ran away, but thereafter as a member of the ANC who has taken away this person who returned to attack and kill ANC people, he should have presented himself at their meetings.

ADV SIGODI: Why should he?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about the deceased?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Should have attended the meetings?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How many meetings didn’t he attend?

MR SAMUEL: According to the applicant the deceased was nowhere to be found until the day he actually died.

CHAIRPERSON: No I asked how many meetings he didn’t attend? You see, you’re trying to make a big point of the fact that the deceased did not attend meetings of the ANC. ...(indistinct)

MR SAMUEL: Well the applicant also said that the meetings held, said that the message was sent to the deceased to come to the meetings. I take the point, that we don’t know how many meetings were held.

CHAIRPERSON: We know that the decision reached the deceased.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Honourable Chairperson, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Your point is that there were meetings which he didn’t attend?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, and what is important is what conclusions the applicant drew based on these suspicious circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: What suspicious circumstances? ...(indistinct) any?

MR SAMUEL: The fact that after this attack, the fact that he’d take Stoffel away and immediately thereafter there’s an attack on the ANC people, and that the deceased, even ‘though he lives very close to where the applicant lives, is nowhere to be seen for a period of two weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, his absence from a place isn’t a ground for suspicion. That’s all it is, nothing more. A man who they had trusted implicitly until the day they release him and Stoffel.

MR SAMUEL: Well, Honourable Chairperson, it is my argument that they didn’t release Stoffel, that in fact they wouldn’t have released Stoffel.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) they’ve trusted him until he’d pleaded for Stoffel and Stoffel attacked the ANC thereafter. That’s common cause. He pleaded for him, let’s leave aside whether he took him away, but he pleaded for him, and as a result thereof Stoffel wasn’t killed on that day and on that very same day Stoffel joined in an attack on the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: One reason why they released him was because the deceased told them this was the first mistake this man has made. The apparently accepted that it was his first mistake. They might have been wrong in their judgment.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson we’re looking at a time when the killings were taking place all the time. The secrets of, their secrets were known by Stoffel. They’re unlikely to forgive and so easily release Stoffel.

CHAIRPERSON: They’ve heard about secrets, but there was no mention made about what the secrets were, you understand. As far as we are concerned they released him because this man said look here he’s made a mistake, and they let him go.

Now you are using an argument to say he wasn’t released. They expected him to come back and he didn’t come back. But your argument against the deceased was that the deceased didn’t turn up for the next two weeks, and because he didn’t turn up for the next two weeks that is sufficient reason for wanting to go and kill him.

MR SAMUEL: I’m saying in the mind of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes in the mind of the applicant ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: And given the circumstances under which they lived during that time, I believe it was probably the state of emergency time, when even the government of the day were taking decisions without probable cause and without clinical examination, so if these people under attack took these decisions without the strongest of legal evidence ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Let’s not get into an argument. He was absent for say two weeks, that caused suspicion. Coupled with the fact that he stood in as a advocate for Stoffel, and we’ve, we must accept that Stoffel betrayed them and attacked them that same afternoon. It seems that’s the only evidence before us.

So in their minds they said, listen this man is a friend at least, and he’s related to this other man Stoffel who we now have proved is our enemy, and because he is a friend of him, and advocated his case that morning or a few days ago, we couple the two and we say they’re birds of the same feather, and that’s why they decided to kill Mr Mbeko.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: That is the other way, if you leave my interpretation out of it and you follow the other alternative interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s up to you to decide which of the alternatives you wish to persuade us to accept.

MR SAMUEL: It appears that I’m going to have a difficulty in persuading you on my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: You may have difficulty, but you’ve got to tell us that you would like us to accept this proposition. If you believe that that is the right proposition. If you believe that this is the proposition, then you must say well this what I ask you to accept.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, I’m in a difficult position in that I only have the evidence presented before our Commission, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: And I’m going to ask, with respect, that the Commission accepts both my propositions in the alternative, that due to the effluxion of time perhaps you may get these slight inconsistencies. That the first, that if the Commission accepts that, in fact, the meeting did not release, set free, Mr Stoffel but merely allowed him to go out of the earshot of the meeting, and expected him to come back, that on that basis the suspicion against Mr Mbeko was greater and they had a basis on which to accept that he was involved with or sympathetic to the actions of Mr Stoffel and perhaps the IFP.

If the Commission finds that they cannot accept on the evidence before it, that proposition, then I’m going to submit that the argument, or the proposition put by Adv de Jager be accepted as the proposition.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, proceed.

MR SAMUEL: In the circumstances I’m going to argue that it is clear and it has not been disputed that there were deaths of ANC people in the area. Even the statement of the deceased’s wife indicates that ANC people were attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: We don’t challenge that, we accept that.

MR SAMUEL: Therefore, I’m submitting that the actions taken to kill one individual is not disproportionate to the aims that the applicant and his organisation were trying to get.

Surely in those times, to have someone who one suspected of being an informer for the other side, even if he lived there, even if he were expelled as a member of the ANC, he would still be in a position to give information on logistics, etc., pertaining to the operation of the ANC, which would then be utilised by the IFP to carry out the raids and attacks. A simple telephone call would indicate to the IFP that the ANC members were meeting at such a particular a place, or that the ANC members were not in the area, the men were not in the area, and the attack could be carried out. So, given those circumstances, one can understand the drastic action that was taken, the drastic action in killing someone suspected of being a spy in those times. It appears that Mr Ngema was involved in the decision. He was the leader of the area.

There’s no indication that the ANC after the death of Mr Mbeko has taken any action against the applicant, so it seems that his actions were not in conflict with the organisation, the UDF as it stood then. And that would, I would submit, add to the probability that in fact it was a decision that was supported by Mr Ngema and perhaps others in the Self Defence Unit. I therefore submit, Honourable Members, that the applicant should be given amnesty for his actions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL ADDRESS COMMITTEE: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I’ll try to keep my response brief. My learned colleague has made much of whether in fact Mr Stoffel was released, or whether the group there had given Mr Mbeko permission to take the, to take Mr Stoffel away for a short period only to be brought back later.

It is my submission, Honourable Chairperson, that the decision, that there was in fact agreement that Mr Stoffel be released. If that wasn’t the decision of the group of members who were present at the time, Honourable Chairperson, there is no reasonable explanation as to why, after a reasonable time had elapsed, and that this group of people who were intent upon interrogating Mr Stoffel, and if their suspicions had been confirmed then to kill him, would not then have gone after Mr Mbeko immediately to ascertain what had happened, rather than just let him go off.

ADV DE JAGER: It did make a difference whether he was released or whether he was sort of helped to escape by Mr Mbeko. Wouldn’t the community feel that whether they’ve released him, even if they’ve released him, they’ve done so because that was what Mr Mbeko asked, and Mr Mbeko, in fact, argued on behalf of Stoffel and Stoffel betrayed everything, and so Mr Mbeko and Stoffel they’re friends, he stood in for him, so we’re going to kill him because clearly he tried to help Stoffel, and that may be because they’re both IFP, or they are both sympathetic to the IFP.

MS PATEL: But with respect, Honourable Commissioner, the relevance of the contradiction in the applicant’s evidence goes to his credibility, and it goes to exactly what motivated him to eventually commit the act for which he was found guilty. It doesn’t go to the community’s perception of Mr Mbeko or Mr Stoffel under the circumstances.

I would argue further, Honourable Chairperson, that the decision to kill Mr Mbeko, that we’ve heard contradictory evidence, or evidence that is not probable, regarding why the decision was taken to kill only Mr Mbeko. The applicant has stated that there would have been difficulty regarding locating Mr Stoffel. With respect, I find this improbable, given that the decision to kill Mr Mbeko was taken almost immediately after the attack had taken place, so there was no evidence at that stage that Mr Stoffel would not be located at all. In fact, he was the main perpetrator. It makes no sense why they wouldn’t have tried to locate him, and taken a joint decision to kill them both and not the one only.

Furthermore, regarding the question of the decision, I would ask you to take into consideration the evidence of the wife of the deceased, who stated that Mr Ngema had in fact visited her on the morning of the death of the deceased, and that if in fact he had been party to the decision to kill the deceased, he would not have acted accordingly.

Furthermore, if one looks at a further aspect that goes to the applicant’s credibility, is his evidence regarding his girlfriend’s testimony. He would have us believe that she just walked past, and then his evidence initially is that the first time he had heard that she had walked past was when she testified at Court at the trial, subsequently he stated that they had in fact discussed this when he got home. He vacillated as to her relationship with the deceased.

Furthermore, Honourable Chairperson, I will ask you to, it is my respectful submission, that the applicant wasn’t an open and forthright witness. In fact it took us hours to get the information from him. It is my respectful submission that he acted on a whim of his own without the authorisation of Ngema. That possibly he was drinking at the time that Mr Ngema, sorry that Mr, that the deceased had walked into the shebeen, and that it was a spur of the moment, or that he had acted under those circumstances.

To say that it was acceptable for him to conduct himself in the way that he did under the circumstances that prevailed during those times, Honourable Chairperson, I believe is an unacceptable explanation. If one looks at the way in which Stoffel was handled, there was a suspicion amongst the organisation that he was involved with the IFP, that there was a structure in place that Mr Stoffel was then, in fact, collected, that there was an agreement that he would then be interrogated, and on that basis a decision would have been taken to kill him if their suspicions were in fact confirmed. This was not done in this case. In fact, the applicant could not even confirm whether the deceased had in fact received the messages to come to the meetings, so with respect, the correct procedure in terms of the organisation, would not have been to act in the manner that he had.

So, it is my respectful submission that he was untruthful in terms of whether he was, in terms of the fact that he was authorised to carry out the act that he in fact did. If one looks at the information that he acted on, it is my respectful submission that it was disproportionate to the action that was in fact taken eventually. That there were in fact other avenues that were available to the applicant that he did not take. It is my...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he didn’t even consider, brushed aside any notion that the applicant should be expelled from the organisation.

MS PATEL: That is in fact so, Honourable Chairperson. It is my respectful submission that the applicant hasn’t complied with the requirements of the act, and that his application should accordingly be denied. Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: Just one point, Honourable Chairperson, I think that as far as the proportionality element is concerned, I believe that the test should be not only the information or suspicion or the evidence that he had which implicated the deceased, but also the type of harm that he was trying to prevent, and here, if in fact the deceased was a spy, then that could have resulted in the death of a number of people. Already, by releasing Stoffel, some people died, so I believe that therefore the action taken was proportional to the intended harm.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Committee reserves its decision and will in due course, when it has made its decision, announce it to all the interested parties.

We now will adjourn and resume at 2:15.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

 

PUMANI DEREK MWELI: AM 0599/96

ON RESUMPTION

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. The next matter on the roll for today is that of Pumani Derek Mweli, application number 599/96.

MR SAMUEL: I appear on behalf of the applicant, Honourable Chairperson. Samuel, first name Sivin.

MS WILLIAMS: Honourable Chairperson I appear on behalf of the implicated persons. Williams, initials G.E.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t hear that, sorry.

MS WILLIAMS: My name is Williams, initials G.E.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I hear you correctly? The first name?

MS WILLIAMS: Gillian.

CHAIRPERSON: Gillian?

MS WILLIAMS: That’s right.

MR WILLS: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I’m John Wills, attorney of Pietermaritzburg. I appear on behalf of a number of the family members of the victims, and certain victims themselves. I’ll list their names for the record, Ndodo Duma, Maxwell Bapa Mbongwa, Mandla Buthelezi, Sibusiso Sibisi, Ben Cele, Sithembisa Paulus Zondi, Bongi Nkosi Zondi, Nicholas Bekathemba Kulu, Hlomi Zondi, Sikumbuso Dorrington Sesebo, Jabulani Harvey Jelembi, Thokozani Cele, Siphiwe Cele, and Velejaka Simeon Cele, Percy Bell Majozi, Caroline Sitebi and Imelda Jonah. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wills would you be able to give us a list of the names tomorrow or so to be handed in?

MR WILLS: I have the list now if we can just get it photocopied for you, for each Member.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Samuel, you may proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Before I proceed, before I proceed, I’m not sure if there’s an echo in the mike which I have got, or? Honourable Chairperson, the mike that I’ve got is picking up a lot of ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Please sort that out.

Mr Mweli will you please stand.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mweli please stand. Are you prepared to take the oath in this matter?

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: Mr Mweli, when were you born?

MR MWELI: In 1974, May 20.

MR SAMUEL: And are you applying for amnesty in respect of seven counts of murder, four counts of attempted murder, and two counts of assault GBH in respect of which you were convicted?

MR MWELI: Yes, that’s correct.

MR SAMUEL: Now, prior to your arrest, Mr Mweli, where were you residing?

MR MWELI: I resided in Stage Two, in Hlohloko Road.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR MWELI: H L O H L O K O. Hlohloko.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this road?

MR MWELI: Downwards in Stage Two, the very last road or street.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but where is this place, Stage Two?

MR MWELI: It’s im Pietermaritzburg, in Imbali.

MR SAMUEL: Were you residing anywhere else before you came to live in Stage Two?

MR MWELI: No, I was born there, in Imbali that is.

MR SAMUEL: Where were you schooling?

MR MWELI: I first went to school at Fulunwazi High Primary School and Zama Zulu as well as Kwaluza, and also Siamo School, it’s in Pietermaritzburg. It was in Mpumuza.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give me that name again, and how do you spell it?

MR MWELI: Mpumuza, will be M P U M U Z A, Mpumuza. Next to Culuza.

CHAIRPERSON: And the last one?

MR MWELI: Culuza will be C U L U Z A.

CHAIRPERSON: Up to what standard of education, or up to what standard did you proceed in your education?

MR MWELI: Up to standard five.

MR SAMUEL: Whilst you were schooling, with whom did you live?

MR MWELI: I was with my sister in Hlobohlobo at Imbali.

MR SAMUEL: What Stage did your sister live in Imbali?

MR MWELI: In Stage Two.

MR SAMUEL: Did anything happen to the house in which your sister lived?

MR MWELI: At the time when I was still residing with my sister her house was set alight, was burned by UDF members if I am not mistaken.

MR SAMUEL: When you say her house was burned, what happened to the house. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

How did the house get burned? Did someone take a match and literally light a fire in the house, or did the fire start as a result of some form of attack?

MR MWELI: The house was burned by petrol bombs.

MR SAMUEL: When the house was attacked by petrol bombs, by people throwing, wielding, petrol bombs, where, was there anyone in the house?

MR MWELI: Yes, there was, my sister and my brother-in-law and their child. Because I had visited somewhere I was not in the house.

MR SAMUEL: What happened to these people?

MR MWELI: The neighbours enlisted help to them and they were able to escape this ordeal, but the property was burned.

CHAIRPERSON: When did this fire take place?

MR MWELI: This fire took place at night, or in the evening.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I’m asking you when. What month and what year are we talking about?

MR MWELI: I will ask the Judge to beg my pardon because I don’t quite remember everything, I don’t remember when exactly this happened, especially the details that pertains to this.

CHAIRPERSON: I’d like you to give us how many years ago did that happen? You may remember what class or what standard you were at the time, that might help you.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So tell us, what year was it?

MR MWELI: I think it’s 1987 if I’m not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please proceed Mr Samuel.

MR SAMUEL: Now why, do you know why this house was attacked? Do you know why this house was attacked?

MR MWELI: What I know and what I will be able to say is that it was burned because my sister and my elder brothers were IFP members, known as Inkatha at the time, as well as the fact that they used to teach at Zulu schools.

MR SAMUEL: Now, did you ever get any information at any later stage as to who, which individuals, carried out this attack?

CHAIRPERSON: You’re talking about the names of the individuals?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

MR MWELI: Yes, although I’m not sure about this, but I did hear that some were there, like Sibusiso, I don’t quite remember his surname, and a group or gang from Slaing and some from Imbali.

MR SAMUEL: Do you remember the names of these people?

MR MWELI: Some of them yes, I do have the recollection of their names, like Nzo, the first one. The second one Duma.

MR SAMUEL: How did you learn that these people were responsible for the attack? From whom did you learn that?

MR MWELI: I gathered that from the neighbours who saw that, as well as other people who were used to around in the area. Some prisoners will give me this information as to the attackers.

MR SAMUEL: Now, the area that the house was situated in, the house that was burned was situated in, was that area affiliated or populated by people from one political party or more than one political party?

MR MWELI: I would say in Stage Two, the majority there were UDF members. The Inkatha houses were very few. I would say the area was dominated with UDF members. So that people who resided there, the IFP members for instance, would be Mr Madisela, Ngcobo, those were the ones affiliated to Inkatha who resided there. I don’t have clear recollection of others. I used to visit them quite a lot, in their houses that is.

MR SAMUEL: After your, the house that you lived in, was burned down, did you move and live elsewhere?

MR MWELI: Yes. We lived and went to One at my aunt’s place, called, the street in Stage One where we resided was, the name, Mahlangosi Road.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please.

MR MWELI: Mahlosi will be M A H L O S I road.

CHAIRPERSON: Malangosi?

MR MWELI: Yes, Mahlongosi Road.

MR SAMUEL: Now this area that you moved to, is it populated by people from one political party?

MR MWELI: Mahlongosi Road where we went to was an IFP stronghold area. That street was Inkatha, was filled with Inkatha people.

MR SAMUEL: What organisation do you belong to? Political organisation?

MR MWELI: The IFP.

MR SAMUEL: when did you join the IFP?

MR MWELI: I joined it in 1987, to be a fully fledged member. I joined in 1987 as a full member.

MR SAMUEL: Did you join before your house in Stage Two was burned, or after our house in Stage Two was burned?

MR MWELI: I joined after they burned my house in Stage Two.

MR SAMUEL: Do you already, or did you hold any office or position in the IFP?

MR MWELI: Yes. I was after residing there and working because the people there they ended up electing me as a chairman of IFP right there in the area.

ADV DE JAGER: How old was he then, were you then? You joined the IFP at the age of 13, thirteen years of age in 1987.

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: At what age were you elected to be chairman?

MR MWELI: It was 1988. I think I was around 14 or 15 in that year, if I’m not mistaken.

MR SAMUEL: Who was the leader of the IFP in that area?

MR MWELI: You mean amongst the youth, or the elderly, or the adults?

CHAIRPERSON: He’s talking about the IFP, the Inkatha Freedom Party.

MR MWELI: The chairman was Abdul Awetta.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that name please.

MR MWELI: It is A W E T T A.

MR SAMUEL: Now you told us that you were elected chairman of IFP. Are you talking about the IFP organisation, or what, you can’t have two chairpersons of the same organisation?

MR MWELI: I was referring to the youth. There were wards. There will be wards 3, 4, 2, 1. My chairman was Derick. The secretary was Mafigizong. The treasurer was Kwahnidladla.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, we’re talking about yourself. You were chairman of what? The Inkatha youth brigade, or what, and what ward? Tell us those details.

MR MWELI: I was Inkatha chairman, youth brigade, in ward four.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is in Stage One?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now the, you mentioned Mr Abdul Awetta as being the leader of the IFP. Was he the leader of the IFP for the whole of Imbali?

MR MWELI: We took him as the leader or chairman of ward four. The chairman of Natal Midlands was VP Ndlovu and David Ntombela.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you please repeat the names. David Ntombela and who was the other one?

MR MWELI: Mr VP Ndlovu. Vilapi Ndlovu his name. So the initial would be V.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Are there any other important IFP people, leaders that you met, and whom you worked with, after you joined the IFP, that you will be mentioning in your evidence later, but for the record we need to get the names down.

MR MWELI: Yes, the late Jerome Mncwabe

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that name please.

MR MWELI: Jerome, G

CHAIRPERSON: I got that, the surname.

MR MWELI: M N C W A B E.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: Anyone else?

MR MWELI: Mr Gasela, we used to call him Mr Gasela.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that name again.

MR MWELI: G A S E L A.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Now, during this period, were there any violent acts committed by and against IFP members?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that now 1998? During which period? 1998 to 1995 or what’s the period span?

MR SAMUEL: Let me clear that up Honourable Member.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes you can lead him on certain things, because certain things wouldn’t be in dispute, so lead him thereon so that. When were you arrested for these offences? When were you arrested?

MR MWELI: January 1989, 23rd the date.

MR SAMUEL: Now between the period you joined the IFP, that’s 1987, to 1989, were there any attacks on IFP members?

MR MWELI: Yes, there were.

MR SAMUEL: Who was carrying out these attacks?

MR MWELI: You mean the ones who were attacking IFP or ANC? I’m not clear.

MR SAMUEL: You told us there were attacks on IFP members. People were attacking IFP members. Who was carrying out these attacks on IFP members?

MR MWELI: Those were ANC members, who were in Stage One. Each time that I was passing a car, or drive past,

ADV DE JAGER: There was also attacks vice versa, the two parties attacked each other, at that time?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: There was many attacks between the two parties during that period?

MR MWELI: Very true.

MR SAMUEL: Did you as an IFP member also attack ANC or UDF people?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now, were you given any instructions by your organisation relating to attacks on ANC members, or UDF members?

MR MWELI: Yes, to tell the truth, I would say yes, I would receive instructions from the leaders locally or around, and some us as members of IFP volunteered to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let’s just do one thing at a time. Before you volunteered to attack, you received instructions from leaders to attack, I want to know when was that you got instructions? Who were these leaders? And what you were told to attack? Please tell me.

MR MWELI: Yes, I would receive instructions from them.

CHAIRPERSON: Who ...(indistinct)

ADV DE JAGER: Give us the names who gave you instructions.

MR MWELI: Mr Abdul Awetta was the first. Mr Jerome Mncwabe the second. Mr Gasela as well.

ADV DE JAGER: When was this?

MR MWELI: It happened in Imbali after I was staying in Stage One, in 1988.

ADV DE JAGER: And the Chairperson asked you what were you instructed to do?

MR MWELI: I was instructed to kill the members of the UDF. And to chase them away from Imbali.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were these instructions given to you? Where were you?

MR MWELI: Sometimes we will be at Mr Awetta’s sometimes at Gasela, sometimes when we will be with Jerome on the way.

MR SAMUEL: When you say we, to whom are you referring? Who were these instructions given to besides yourself?

MR MWELI: ...(indistinct) and the people I used to keep company with was Dladla Luthuli. Dladla Luthuli I would inform of the instructions I would have received.

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I didn’t get that name. Was it Luthuli or Ntuli.

MR MWELI: Luthuli. L U.

CHAIRPERSON: So you passed on to Dladla Luthuli what information you had received. Is that it?

MR MWELI: Yes. Sometimes I will tell him, sometimes I wouldn’t. Sometimes I will simply tell him let’s go.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is Dladla Luthuli now?

MR MWELI: He’s in Imbali.

MR SAMUEL: Besides receiving these instructions, were you given any weapons, by these people?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us what weapons you received from them, and from whom, and when?

MR MWELI: Mr Awetta often gave us ammunition, and Jerome Mncwabe would give us firearms and others would assist by buying us ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, where you say Jerome gave us arms, we’re really concerned not with others, we’re concerned with you. So Jerome gave you arms, is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What arms?

MR MWELI: Seven point six five, and three point eight special.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Did you ever receive any money from these people?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us how much you received, when you received it, and what was this money given to you for?

MR MWELI: Awetta gave me five hundred rand and said I should buy clothes. Jerome gave me three hundred rand, sometimes. It was not only Awetta who gave me money, but other gave me money as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not working at that time?

MR MWELI: No, I was not working.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you doing?

MR MWELI: I was a student.

MR SAMUEL: Why did these people give you so much money?

MR MWELI: They had said this is the money they are giving out to me as a person who is a hard worker for their organisation, or who is working hard for the organisation.

MR SAMUEL: What hard work were you doing for the organisation?

MR MWELI: Like fighting against UDF people and killing them.

MR SAMUEL: So they were happy with you fighting and killing UDF people?

MR MWELI: I will say they took me as a hero.

MR SAMUEL: Did you ever perform any duties for Mr Mncwabe, Mr Gasela and Mr VP Ndlovu, was it, did you ever perform any duties for them?

MR MWELI: No, except for killing.

MR SAMUEL: You told us that you were involved in fighting with the UDF members. Can you tell us about these skirmishes that you had.

ADV DE JAGER: Look here, before we go onto specific skirmishes, could you tell us why did you fight with them? And what did you want to achieve? We’ve heard that you’ve been killing people, why did you kill them, and what aim did you have when you decided to kill them?

MR MWELI: The instructions would entail killing, to kill and eliminate UDF and in other words UDF should cease to exist.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you want UDF to cease to exist?

MR MWELI: It’s because it was alleged that it was burning people’s houses and that they will bring ideas of the communists.

MR SAMUEL: So was that your political objective in trying, in carrying out these orders to kill UDF people?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now without going into the specific instances that you were charged for, I’d like you to describe and set the background about these skirmishes, the fights that were going on. Without going into individual cases here, tell us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What, are you talking about skirmishes in which he personally was involved?

MR SAMUEL: I want you to speak about those instances where you and the UDF people clashed, in which you were involved, without dealing with specific instances. Just tell us what used to happen when UDF members confronted ANC members, or IFP members. What happened then?

MR MWELI: Between IFP and UDF there was enmity, and the two groups were fighting against each other, and each time IFP member would be seen around the area of Penduba we would be killed by the others, and as well as vice versa, each time they would see the UDF members in ...(indistinct) would be killed. So there was that, and the fact that the IFP members, they wanted to eliminate UDF members and they will cease to exist, and ANC people as well, we aimed at killing. Sometimes there will be people killed from IFP’s area who will be killed for no apparent reason, for the fact that that person is residing in the area of IFP will be killed for that, without any action whatsoever. And were also given muti as well to give us bravery so that you always crave to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on, I want to take this down. You were given muti?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: By who?

MR MWELI: At times we will go to Mr Gasela’s house and we will be pierced with razor’s there and we will be tied with birds. That would protect us from being shot by anybody around.

ADV DE JAGER: Let’s take it now, you went to Mr Gasela’s house. There you were pierced or cut by razors, is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Who did the cutting? Mr Gasela or somebody else?

MR MWELI: The traditional healer will come. We did not know that person. We’ve never seen him or her before. Sometimes we will got Mr Themba Tjale and the traditional healer would arrive there, every after six months they will go and revive them.

MR SAMUEL: Why were you given muti by these people? What was the purpose?

MR MWELI: The purpose was to give us that crave to kill and give us that braveness to kill others but be protected at the same time from being shot and killed.

MR SAMUEL: So were you told that if you have this muti on you the opposition’s bullets won’t strike you?

MR MWELI: Yes, sometimes that happened. I’m one example, it has happened to me. I was never shot. There were places I could not receive, or bullets would not hit me.

MR SAMUEL: Were you lucky? Now you say Mr Gasela was the one who administered the muti, or arranged for the muti to be administered, as well as Mr Themba Tjale?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Besides you, who else did you observe muti being administered to?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want the names of the individuals?

MR SAMUEL: Just the description, I want to know whether there were others who were given muti. Were there others also given muti?

MR MWELI: Yes, there were others.

MR SAMUEL: Were these young people, or older people?

MR MWELI: Sometimes it will be youth as well as adults.

MR SAMUEL: Were they also given muti for the same purpose?

MR MWELI: Yes, especially to the people who were committed to the fact that they hate UDF, and the ones who were very active in fighting. Those were the candidates of receiving the muti. The ones who were committed and dedicated to the fight.

MR SAMUEL: So this muti, correct me if I’m wrong, so this muti was administered to the soldiers of the IFP in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) they weren’t soldiers in the real sense, you see. I don’t think it’s necessary for you to bring it in. Really to say that those were the chaps who were dedicated and committed to fight, unless you say they were in a uniform, a soldier’s uniform.

MR SAMUEL: So, instead of the word soldiers, can I rephrase that? So this muti was given to all the fighters of the IFP?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it given to all the fighters, or to those special fighters who were really committed and dedicated to the fighting, or did all the supporters receive muti?

MR MWELI: It was not every person who would be given muti. They will only elect the chosen few, the dedicated few, those will be the ones they will administer muti to.

MR SAMUEL: What were you chosen for? For what purpose were you chosen?

MR MWELI: The purpose of killing the UDF members.

MR SAMUEL: So muti was administered to those who would carry out the orders to kill?

MR MWELI: Very true.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that it was given to people who were ready and dedicated to kill, not necessarily those who were ordered to kill? Do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Now, were these attacks on the UDF and the ANC members, were they attacks which were in all instances planned to the very last detail, or did these attacks take place in some instances spontaneously when you saw these people in front of you?

MR MWELI: There would be attacks that would be planned, and as well as the ones that would happen abrupt, or take place, maybe sometimes will be driving in a car, passing by Awetta’s house, and they will throw stones on our car and in turn someone will go and retaliate of what had happened prior or before.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I want to now proceed onto the specific counts, unless the Committee Members have any questions before I move into that sequence of events?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think just proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Now, you were charged with in all 19 counts, some of attempted murder, one count of robbery, and other counts of murder, correct?

ADV DE JAGER: Referring to pages 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the record.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Honourable Member. Now, you were convicted of counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19. Is it in respect of these counts that you apply for amnesty?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Dealing with count 1. Count 1 deals with the death of ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Deals with the attempted murder of Sibusiso Johnson Sibisi, not the death of.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, it’s the attempted murder of Mr Sibisi, which took place on the 27th of October 1988 at or near Imbali township. Do you recall this incident?

MR MWELI: Yes, I do recall.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us what transpired on that day?

MR MWELI: What happened on that day in question, it was immediately after the death of brother, of Ray Dlamini’s brother, who resided at Stage One. It was the shops. We used to exchange in keeping guard at Ray’s house because they used to attack those houses since there were two IFP houses in that area. So this particular day it was my turn in keeping guard.

MR SAMUEL: Let’s go take it easy. You say Mr Ray Dlamini was killed?

MR MWELI: Ray Dlamini’s brother, Mehlonguma, that is the brother of Ray Dlamini, was killed.

MR SAMUEL: Which political party did he belong to?

MR MWELI: He had not joined any political organisation, but the family was IFP, or his family was IFP, as far as I knew him.

MR SAMUEL: Who, as far as your information is concerned, was responsible for his death?

MR MWELI: I would be lying, I don’t know.

MR SAMUEL: Why was it necessary to guard his house?

MR MWELI: That house used to be attacked by UDF members quite often. They will ... stones on the house, and now we will take turns in guarding the house, or shifts in guarding the house.

MR SAMUEL: When you say we used to take turns, who are you referring to?

MR MWELI: It were IFP members. Somtimes it will be Museni, somtimes Thembo Sibeko and they will even sleep there. Sometimes it will be myself and Dladla and sometimes it will be myself and Kwani Dladla.

CHAIRPERSON: Just talk about the 27th of October. Who was guarding the house? Yourself?

MR MWELI: Yes, on that particular day it was myself and Kwani.

MR SAMUEL: When you went to guard this house, did you arm yourself? Did you carry an arm?

MR MWELI: Yes, we were armed.

MR SAMUEL: What weapon did you have?

MR MWELI: I had a firearm, and Kwani had a home-made firearm.

MR SAMUEL: What happened on that day?

MR MWELI: As we stood on the way, myself and Kwani and Zolo Ndlalosa, we met Sibu just before we arrived there, I think it was about ten metres way, we met Sibu and some others I did not know and they had spears in their possession, if I’m not mistaken. Zolo had said we’ll leave him or her by his or her aunt’s.

ADV DE JAGER: You say, "...if I’m not mistaken." Mistaken about what? Whether they had spears, or what are you not sure about?

MR MWELI: If I’m not mistaken, about Sibu. I think there were about three or four who had spears in their hands.

MR SAMUEL: When you refer to Sibu, are you speaking of Sibisizo Sibisi?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Who was the complainant in that case and who testified against you in the criminal trial?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

You saw Sibu with other people, some of whom were armed with spears. What happened?

MR MWELI: Zondo was about to take a turn into the passage, Sibu came to me to ask as to where I was going, because I saw them having or carrying spears and I told them that I was going to Ray’s house and they asked me why I was harassing the girl.

MR SAMUEL: Can you go slowly because the Honourable Members are taking down notes.

What did they ask you?

MR MWELI: They were coming closer to me and as I noticed that they had spears and part of that gang that we were fighting against and I drew out the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us who, he asked you "...why I was harassing the girl." Which girl was he talking about?

MR MWELI: Zodla.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is she?

MR MWELI: It was my girlfriend at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And so when he asked you this, what did you say to him?

MR MWELI: I said "...No I’m not harassing her, I’m just leaving her here." As they were talking they were coming closer, drawing closer to me.

ADV DE JAGER: Was Zodla with you at that stage?

MR MWELI: Yes, I was with her, we were coming from my house, or the area where my house is.

CHAIRPERSON: They were coming closer to you, and then what happened?

MR MWELI: Then I took out my gun and I began shooting.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you take your gun out and start shooting.

MR MWELI: Because I knew very well that as they were drawing closer they would stab me so in protecting or defending myself this is what I should employ, should, because those were our rivals, people we were fighting against.

MR SAMUEL: When you say they were your rivals, what do you mean?

MR MWELI: It was quite usual at Umlatangosi to fight against Hlagoti, it was the shops. There were borders that this group was automatically fighting the other across the border.

MR SAMUEL: Was it a territorial war, or was it a war relating to political affiliations?

MR MWELI: This was a political war, as it was, because a person who was residing in One was an enemy to Inkatha and the one who was residing the other side, towards Two, was and enemy of the other, so he’s trying to come across fighting or fight will strike.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us about this, your pulling out your gun and firing. Who did you fire at, and how many times?

MR MWELI: I was shooting towards their direction many times, and they fled. Subsequently another gang or group emerged and approached me and asked me, and I told them as to what happened and we tried looking out for them but we could not discover or see them.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you injure anybody when you shot at them that day?

MR MWELI: I think there was who got injured.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR MWELI: I heard that afterwards that that person was Sibu, in prison.

MR SAMUEL: Now, you heard evidence at the trial in which it was suggested that you were fighting with your girlfriend and they came to her assistance and it had nothing to do with political affiliations?

MR MWELI: No, I was not fighting with Zondlo at all. I wouldn’t have stopped fighting. I wouldn’t have fought Zondlo there, yet we’re coming all the way from where we were. I would have started fighting her there instead of there at that spot.

MR SAMUEL: Did you want to kill those people when you fired the shots at them as they fled?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Why?

MR MWELI: That is because I knew very well that those were people we were fighting against. They belonged to ANC. Each time they approach me it was so clear and obvious that I have to kill.

MR SAMUEL: Are you saying that you would have killed any ANC or UDF person who was fighting you, in that period, if you came across them?

MR MWELI: Not everybody, but the ones we would often fight with and the ones I would receive complaints about, those will be the ones I will target or fight against.

MR SAMUEL: Did you receive any complaints or orders relating to Sibu, as you call him, or the people that he joined from that particular area?

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know what you mean by that question. You see, did he receive any complaints, then you talk about did he receive orders. I think you should just divide, separate that out.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you ordered by anybody to kill Sibisi on that day?

MR MWELI: No, on that day I had no instruction but we are going to guard the house as I had explained earlier on, and now we encountered these, they came and approached me, now I told myself that I have to protect or defend.

MR SAMUEL: Did you receive any complaints about Sibu and the people that he joined?

CHAIRPERSON: After killing him, or after shooting him?

MR SAMUEL: Prior to that, Honourable Chairperson. Before you shot him, did you received any complaints about him and his associates?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean on that day?

MR SAMUEL: No, Honourable Chairperson.

MR MWELI: Yes. I once had instructions about him because even himself would not be, would not frequent, would not come to Umlatlankosi at all, so he knew very well that he was wanted by us.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you want him

MR MWELI: He was one of the gang that was harassing from Stage One.

MR SAMUEL: What were they doing, this gang?

MR MWELI: It was a gang that would harass some women or some brothers or fellow people and the kids as well, the children, should they go anywhere else they will harass them, approach them and harass them.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you’re talking about a gang, and you had your people. Were you two gangs fighting each other, on that day, ordinary gangs fighting each other?

MR MWELI: No, I’m talking about UDF gang.

ADV DE JAGER: On that day did it have anything to do with politics, or did you fight them because they accused you of harassing your girlfriend?

MR MWELI: As they were approaching, coming to me, they were UDF members, the people, besides the fact that we were fighting for personal vendettas, I think they had intended to kill me.

ADV SIGODI: Did you have any personal vendettas between yourself and Sibusiso Sibizi?

MR MWELI: No, I never had any personal vendetta towards Sibu.

MR SAMUEL: You told us that after they had fled another gang came there and you went and looked for these people. Who was this other gang?

MR MWELI: Bekizulu, Huseni, as well as Dodi Zulu. Those are the ones who approached subsequent to this event.

MR SAMUEL: Were these a gang of criminals?

MR MWELI: No, those were IFP members. They were coming from Ray Dlamini’s house.

MR SAMUEL: If you’re referring to a group of people in future, say group, don’t say gang, because in English a gang is associated with criminal activities.

CHAIRPERSON: They may be working as a gang as well. It depends. Anyway, proceed please.

MR SAMUEL: So you say that this was a group of IFP people that you went with looking out for these people who fled?

MR MWELI: Those were the IFP members who came subsequent after this fight, they came, Dudi Bezulu and the Zwele’s the same.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought he said something about they heard the shooting, that is why they came there. Isn’t that what he said.

MR MWELI: Yes, after the shooting they came.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they came because they heard the shooting.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR MWELI: They asked from me and the other boy I was with as to what was happening. I’d told them that we were going towards Ray’s house and they came.

CHAIRPERSON: We must move on. We don’t want details.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. You then explained to them what had transpired. Did you find anybody on that day, of those that fled?

MR MWELI: No.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson this, is as far as I’m going to take count 1. I don’t want to venture into count 2 at this stage. I’m not sure if.

ADV DE JAGER: He was found not guilty on, so he’s not asking for amnesty, so we’re not going to deal with matters unless it’s relevant in another aspect, but let’s deal with what you’re asking for.

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, I meant count 3. Should I proceed now with count 3?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, now

MR MWELI: I am requesting that Sibu and his relatives to forgive me for what I did to him and whatever I did I did under influence. I had no intention whatsoever to fight him that way, but now I am back to my senses and I do understand if he may say he does not forgive me, but I will like as well as the Imbali community to forgive me for all the acts I committed.

CHAIRPERSON: Well at the end of your evidence we will deal with all that. Right now we must move on to count 3.

MR SAMUEL: Now count 3 deals with an incident that took place on the 30th of November 1988, which occurred in Imbali township, where you tried to kill Joseph Ngodama. Do you know this person?

MR MWELI: Yes, I do.

MR SAMUEL: Now, prior to this day, did you hear about his involvement in any acts perpetrated against IFP people?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us what you heard about this gentleman?

MR MWELI: It was, he was one of them who attacked my sister’s house, so I’ve heard, as well as the attack of Mbeki Ngobu’s house who was an IFP member, and Thu Ngobo.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on, I want to take that down. Attacked your sister’s house, and which other house?

MR MWELI: Mbeki Ngobu’s house as well. And Thu Ngobo’s house.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR MWELI: It’s T H U, Ngcobo is N G C O B O.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the first name just T H U ?

MR MWELI: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: Now you told us earlier that this person was responsible for the attack on your sister’s house. Who informed you about the attack on the other IFP member’s house? By this Mr Ngodama.

MR MWELI: I gathered that from the people of the organisation, or the members of the organisation. From Thu Ngcobo.

MR SAMUEL: Were you given any instructions relating to what you should do to this person if you ever saw him.

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Who gave you the instructions, what did they tell you, and ...(intervention)

MR MWELI: Mr Gasela said if ever I come across Ngodama he must be killed.

MR SAMUEL: When did he tell you this?

MR MWELI: Soon after my sister’s house was burned.

ADV DE JAGER: You did meet him then on the 30th of November, is that so? Did you meet Mr Joseph Doduma on the 30th of November?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And what did you do?

MR MWELI: Are you referring to me or Ndodo?

ADV DE JAGER: What did you do to him, or what did he do to you, what happened there?

MR MWELI: Because we wanted Ndodo and I saw him that I tried to shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you see him?

MR MWELI: At Kwalasinkwasi and Mbelebele.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw him there, and then what happened?

MR MWELI: I saw him there, I tried to call him and stop him but he did not stop. I took out my gun and shot him. He then fled.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that you thought nothing about pulling out your gun and shooting to kill, is that it?

MR MWELI: Yes, because he fled, Ndodo that is, and I tried shooting at him. I went back to Beki Ngcobo and Mr Gasela that I did see Goso Ndodo but I failed to shoot him and they said, "...well that’s okay."

MR SAMUEL: Were you with anyone on that day, on the 30th of November?

MR MWELI: Although I don’t quite remember I know I was with somebody. However, I don’t recall the name, whether it was Gasela’s boy or Ntlatla Ntuli, but I know for a fact I was with somebody.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether you succeeded in injuring Ngodoma?

MR MWELI: No I don’t know, but the way he ran away it showed that he did not sustain any injuries.

MR SAMUEL: What was your political objective in having Mr Ngodoma killed?

MR MWELI: It was all boiling down to the fact that Ndodoma must be eliminated and killed at once because he was implicated in these incidents of being in the IFP houses. He was a person that was highly discussed to an extent that anyone who belonged to IFP did want to eliminate this man.

MR SAMUEL: When you say he was highly discussed, where was he discussed?

MR MWELI: He was wanted dead or alive, even where he resided he will call meetings and hold meetings at his house and spread around the UDF ideas.

MR SAMUEL: Who wanted him dead or alive?

MR MWELI: I will say Mr Gasela, Beki Ngcobo and Jerome were the ones.

MR SAMUEL: You told us about Mr Gasela’s instructions to you. How did you know Mr Beki Ngcobo and the other gentleman wanted him dead or alive?

MR MWELI: That was general knowledge even at our meetings we would discuss this matter.

MR SAMUEL: When you say our meetings, do you mean IFP meetings?

MR MWELI: What was discussed about Mr Ndodoma?

ADV DE JAGER: I think that they wanted him dead, as far as I can gather. Was that what you discussed at the meetings, you should kill that man?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he was wanted dead or alive.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Before I move on to count 4 of the indictment, are there any questions that the Members want to ask?

We now move on to count 4 of the indictment. It is alleged that on the 21st of December 1988, that, for the purposes of convenience, may I deal with counts 4 and 5 together?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: It’s alleged that on the 21st of December 1988 at Imbali you tried to kill Mr Maxwell Vapa, I can’t see the name here, Mbongwa.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR SAMUEL: M B O N G W A.

CHAIRPERSON: And who else?

MR SAMUEL: And Martha Buthelezi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Are you aware of the incident we are talking about?

MR MWELI: Yes, I am aware.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us what happened on the 21st of December 1988?

MR MWELI: I was coming from Ray Dlamini’s house, and walking. It was during the day. I met Baba as well as the other one. In fact they asked me as to what I wanted there. I never answered them back. I simply took out my gun and shot at them.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you want to kill them?

MR MWELI: Those were the people we were fighting against and we wanted them as well dead, because they were the ones who rendered the area of One ungovernable, amongst the UDF members.

MR SAMUEL: What do you mean when you say they rendered the area ungovernable?

MR MWELI: They would make sure that they kill IFP houses. This was why I said they rendered the area ungovernable. Then we thought we shall discuss and talk about them and about their death, that they should be killed.

MR SAMUEL: Did you receive any instructions about killing them

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said he was just walking along the road, he saw them, they asked him what he was doing there, he pulled out a gun and shot at them. ...(indistinct) there was nobody there to give him instructions at that time.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, his evidence prior to this was that he did receive instructions, rewards, ammunition, from people.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct),in his general evidence yes, about instructions and rewards. Now is the position different in this case. Are you trying to say that he received specific instructions in this case? He was given specific instructions in this particular count?

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, as in the case of Ndodoma in the last count, he had received instructions from Mr Gasela, he had received instructions from the two other gentlemen, to carry out, whenever he saw this person he was supposed to kill them. Those were instructions given to him in advance. When the opportunity presented itself he carried out the killings. I’m trying to establish what instructions did he receive pertaining to these prior to the day of the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please answer the question.

MR MWELI: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given instructions to kill these two people, and if so precisely when were those instructions given to you?

MR MWELI: I received my instructions from the IFP leaders like Awetta telling us that the people from that area should be killed, like Bapa and the other person were the ones we wanted as well, or formed part of the people we wanted to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: What I’m trying to ask you is whether you were given specific instructions to kill Buthelezi and this other person?

MR MWELI: Yes. At that very time they will call me and tell me that there are people who are troublesome who are dwelling in such places.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to know whether you were given instructions in respect of these two people, and when were you told that these two people must be killed?

MR MWELI: If I’m not mistaken that I received in 1988. This happened long time ago, it’s quite some time, I don’t remember all the details necessary.

ADV DE JAGER: You can’t remember the day, but can you remember did anybody call you and say, "Listen whenever you see Mr Buthelezi or Mr Mbongwa you should kill them."?

MR MWELI: Although I don’t quite remember exactly, but I do have recollection of that much.

ADV DE JAGER: Listen, you should regard those two specific as enemies and you should kill them?

MR MWELI: It was Mr Awetta.

ADV SIGODI: When you shot these two people were you acting according to a general instruction to kill the opposition, or were you acting according to a specific instruction to kill them particularly?

MR MWELI: It was a general instruction. It was not a specific instruction in relation to they two.

CHAIRPERSON: And the general instruction was given to you was that you should kill who?

MR MWELI: To kill the UDF members.

CHAIRPERSON: That meant that at any time, anywhere, if you saw somebody whom you thought was UDF, you must kill him. Is that what it meant

MR MWELI: Yes, but particularly the ones who were active in fights like Bapa and Buthelezi. Those were the ones we’d intended to fight or kill.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought just now you said that you were not given specific instructions about them? You said that you were given general instructions to kill UDF people.

MR MWELI: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright so that is so. That’s how it should be then, hey?

ADV SIGODI: Did this general instruction specify the circumstances under which you could kill?

MR MWELI: It meant the people who were resisting and fighting us, or seeing Awetta’s car and will fight against us and throw stones at us. Those were the people we were after.

CHAIRPERSON: So even if somebody was not fighting or throwing stones at you, if you came across him and he was a UDF member, you would be justified in killing him

MR MWELI: Yes, that happened sometimes. Sometimes you will find a situation where a person would be killed and yet he belonged, or she belonged, to no political organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) of murder, that’s not political. Is that not so?

MR MWELI: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: That would be an ordinary crime of murder, that wouldn’t be political.

MR MWELI: I may not fully agree with you there because there would be other instances where you find you will be sent to some places to do this and execute some plan, you will be told whatever you come across even whether it’s a cat or a dog, you will kill, and ensure that you kill and you leave no stone unturned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR SAMUEL: Now, earlier on I asked you who were you supposed to go out and kill?

CHAIRPERSON: From this particular area?

MR SAMUEL: No, no, as a general question.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought we were dealing with this particular count now?

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, just arising out of the questions that were asked by you and the Honourable Members as to the general instructions, I thought while the opportunity presented itself, I should clear that up.

ADV DE JAGER: It’s still not clear. What you wanted to clear up was whether he was instructed to kill Mr Buthelezi and Mr Mbongwa, or whether he acted, when he killed them, because he was told, "Go and kill UDF members in general." Whether there was a general instruction or a specific one dealing with these two counts. Let’s deal with the counts.

MR SAMUEL: I understand that, with respect Honourable Member, but what I’m saying is that the opportunity presented itself where he, the impression given from his evidence here in respect of his case has gone one step backwards because earlier on he gave a different ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) backwards.

MR SAMUEL: Once again Honourable Member I’m saying let me clear this up. Give me the opportunity, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Clear it up please, quickly.

MR SAMUEL: Now, earlier on, when you were asked this question as regards whom you were supposed to kill, which UDF people you were supposed to kill, what answer did you give?

MR MWELI: I had said the people who were active in fighting and were resisting in joining us, those were the ones we had been given instructions to kill.

MR SAMUEL: Now, the impression that you may have created here is that you now are saying that you would have killed any UDF person that you came across. Is that your evidence now?

CHAIRPERSON: He has said so.

MR MWELI: Please repeat what you said.

MR SAMUEL: What I said is that the impression that you’re now giving is that your instruction was to kill any UDF member that you came across. Is that what you want to convey to this Committee?

MR MWELI: Yes, sometimes that was the case, but as for Baba and the other one were the people we highly wanted and we had to ensure that we kill them.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, now what forum did you come to know that these people were wanted by the IFP?

MR MWELI: Sometimes Jerome will tell me alone, as I will be in his company, and ...(indistinct) will tell me this person is troublesome and will also tell me that this particular one as well is troublesome. I think we should hunt for these and as soon as you capture them you must kill them, that’s what he meant.

MR SAMUEL: When you say Jerome are you referring to, what’s Jerome’s surname?

MR MWELI: Mncwabe, the councillor.

MR SAMUEL: Now on that day in question, can you tell us what happened, that is on the 21st of December?

MR MWELI: As I’d already mentioned earlier on that I was coming from Ray Dlamini’s house and I met or came across Baba together with Sibisi Hlaguti, and they asked me as to where I was going, and I had been already told about them before. I did not even bother myself answering them. What I did was to draw out my gun and shoot at them several times, and left immediately and went to Awetta’s house and I gave this report to him that I’d already done this, and he said no hard feelings.

ADV SIGODI: This Mr Hlaguti that you just mentioned, is it the same as Mandla Buthelezi in count 5?

MR MWELI: I’m referring to Baba, or I’m talking about Baba and Mandla, Mandla Buthelezi. I think it’s Mandla Buthelezi and Baba, the ones I’m talking about. Some I call, or I referred to them, or use their nicknames each time I dealt with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel can we start at a quarter past nine tomorrow?

MS PATEL: Yes, that will be in order, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MR SAMUEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.

MS WILLIAMS: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn and resume at a quarter past nine tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS