Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION: 12TH FEBRUARY 1999 - DAY 9

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, you were busy with the applicant.

MR SAMUEL: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

PUMANI DEREK MWELI: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL: (Cont)

Mr Mweli, we now move on to count 10 of the indictment.

INTERPRETER: If the attorney could remind the interpreter as to what page is that?

MR SAMUEL: This is on page 31 of the bundle.

INTERPRETER: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: It is alleged that on the 31st of December 1988, and at or near Imbali township, you attempted to kill Nicholas Mbeki Themba Zulu, an adult male. Do you want to tell us what happened on that day?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Proceed.

MR MWELI: It was on the 31st of December. I had visited my aunt at One, my uncle Madlala that is. There was some function there so we had invited as a family. I went with my fellow IFP comrades or colleagues. We were about 9 or 8 in number. And as I was inside the house, because the rest of my IFP colleagues were outside, at my uncle’s house, Ndlala Luthuli came in and said ...(indistinct) "there are comrades outside there, meeting outside there. I think they want or they intend to attack us. They also have stones in their hands." and I did not take much notice of what he said.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the person coming and telling you there were comrades outside?

MR MWELI: Dladla Luthuli came into the house. After some time I heard some noise outside, some screaming sort of noise outside, and I went outside with other, together with the IFP colleagues, we went outside.

MR SAMUEL: Can you name them?

MR MWELI: Yes, the ones that I perfectly remember. The one who was there was Umlumi Siawete, King Manyoni.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that name please.

MR MWELI: The surname will be M A N Y O N I. King Manyoni.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SAMUEL: The first person you said was who?

MR MWELI: Lungisi Awette.

MR SAMUEL: Was he any, or is he in any way related to the other Awette that you mentioned?

MR MWELI: Yes, that’s true.

MR SAMUEL: How is he related?

MR MWELI: How I know it, they used to call him Awette because their aunt was Mrs Beatrice Awette. I think they were related to, she was related to his mother, like ...(indistinct) as well used to call themselves Awette, or use the surname of Awette, so I suppose there was some kind of relationship.

MR SAMUEL: So the three of you then went outside. Can you continue with what happened thereafter.

MR MWELI: And the other fourth one was Ndlandala Luthuli. As well as Sandile Mbele. Those are the ones I remember.

MR SAMUEL: Proceed.

MR MWELI: We got out of the Madlala house to the main road, facing, the road was facing the other road where Jeremiah and Vuzi were injured.

CHAIRPERSON: We don’t know all that. All we know is that they went out of the house onto the road. Is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes. We got outside to the road and we found other comrades outside there and they were already stoning us. I had a firearm with me in the company of those who were with me inside. I started shooting many times and some fled, those who were residing at Matlwana.

I don’t know as to how many got injured, and my other comrades or colleagues, IFP colleagues, ran after them. And what I heard subsequently was that they managed to stab one of them and the other was, they managed to stab and capture one and stabbed one and fell on the ground, was lying on the ground apparently.

MR SAMUEL: Was this the person mentioned in count 9 of which you were acquitted, that is Mbuso Jeremiah Nene?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Who stabbed this youngster?

MR MWELI: Ulumi Siawete is the one together with other fellow IFP members who stabbed him, but Ulumi was the main one.

MR SAMUEL: The deceased in count 10, who shot him?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about ...(indistinct) there was a deceased in count 9 that was stabbed to death, for which he was acquitted.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I’ll remember, for the guidance.

The person in count 10, Mr Thulu was not killed, but he was shot at. Can you tell us who shot at him?

MR MWELI: Yes, I’m the one who had the firearm and was shooting. I did not know, as I’ve already mentioned earlier on, as to who got injured and who was killed as a result of my shooting. I did not know at the time.

MR SAMUEL: When you fired these shots did you attempt to kill these people?

MR MWELI: Yes, I will say so, because a gun when you shoot it you kill, so by so doing I may say I did intend to kill.

MR SAMUEL: Did you leave the area after the incident, the place where you were?

MR MWELI: Yes, we fled, we went to our respective homes.

MR SAMUEL: Before I proceed to the next count, Honourable Members, do any of you have any questions at this point?

CHAIRPERSON: No, we don’t have any questions at this stage. Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Can I just ask you, were you the only person having a firearm?

CHAIRPERSON: He said so, yes.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: We now move on to count 11 of the indictment, that’s still on page 31 and we move onto page 32. It’s that, the allegation is that on the 3rd of January 1989 and at ...(indistinct) Imbali, you unlawfully and intentionally killed one Bekani Jacobs Sobisibo, and adult male. Do you want to tell us what happened on the 3rd of January 1989?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Go ahead.

MR MWELI: We were at Mr Thu’s house where we were sitting to Ngcobo.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t hear that. You were at the house of Mr Thu?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then?

MR MWELI: We left the house, myself, I was, I had gone there alone that day. We’d just finished talking with Mr Thu and Gasela.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say we were at the house, I would be pleased if you said I was at the house. Do you understand? You said you were alone. So you were at the house of Mr Thu. Carry on from there.

MR MWELI: The reason why I’m saying that, your Honour, is that before I went to kill Jacobs Sosibo we first discussed this issue together with the leader who were present at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Your counsel will then lead your evidence in that regard, because ...

MR SAMUEL: When you say that you were at the house of Thu, what’s Mr Thu’s surname?

MR MWELI: Ngcobo.

MR SAMUEL: Who else was present at the house?

MR MWELI: It was myself, Beki Ngcobo and Mr Gasela.

MR SAMUEL: What was discussed at the house that is of importance to this hearing?

MR MWELI: We discussed together, we were discussing about Jacob, that he usually brings boys from far away to the Stage Two area, so he’s an ideal, an ideal situation will be to kill him for such acts. So in other words he should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it. You were discussing about Jacob that’s Sosibo.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t take down, what was it that you were discussing about Sosibo?

MR MWELI: What we were discussing about is that he will go and fetch a group of comrades from far away to Stage Two to attack IFP members and houses. In the end we will not even be able to associate as to who was attacking and behind this ordeal.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you say he would fetch comrades from far away, who told you that he fetched comrades from far away?

MR MWELI: I heard from Mr Thu and from Mr Gasela as well.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he fetch people?

MR MWELI: There was ...(indistinct). Said that usually happened during week-ends, and each time we find out there was a person who was attacked it will be realised the people who attacked him or her were not from around, where are known people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR SAMUEL: So what action did this discussion decide to take against Mr Sosibo?

MR MWELI: The outcome of that meeting was boiled down to the fact that he has to be killed.

MR SAMUEL: And who was given the responsibility of killing Mr Sosibo?

MR MWELI: Mr Gaselo and Beki Ngcobo and Thu Ngcobo.

ADV SIGODI: What about them?

MR MWELI: Those are the ones who issued the orders that Sosibo should be killed.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but the question was who was supposed to kill him?

MR MWELI: Myself, I was supposed to do that.

ADV SIGODI: So they gave the order to you to kill him?

MR MWELI: Yes, that’s true.

MR SAMUEL: Did you carry out that order?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us how you went about killing Mr Sosibo?

MR MWELI: If I’m not mistaken I went to Beki Ngcobo’s house at Stage Two. I was coming from Mr Thu’s house, it was night when I was coming. I met him in the passage towards his home, that’s where I identified him, I saw him, and I shot him.

MR SAMUEL: Were you alone at this stage?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: May I proceed to the next count, Honourable Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: We now move on to count 12. It’s alleged that on the 12th of January 1989 and at Imbali township, you killed Stanley Nduduze Shezi, an adult male. Can you tell us what happened pertaining to what you know about the death of Mr Shezi?

MR MWELI: On that particular day I was looking for Mpumelelo Sithole. It was said that I was supposed to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you please stop. I would like the name to be spelled. You were looking for? What is the name of the person, and spell it?

MR MWELI: M P U.

CHAIRPERSON: The name of the man in count 15? Yes, I see, thank you.

MR MWELI: Mpumelelo Sithole.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were looking for Mpumelelo Sithole. Where?

MR MWELI: In Wani, around his home. It’s been some time because I was out looking for him, in search of him.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: I think he’s just taking a small breather. Proceed, tell us what happened? How was it that Mr Shezi got killed?

MR MWELI: I don’t remember the names of the street, but I think it was corner Sangawu if I’m not mistaken. I saw two gentlemen who were standing there, and as I was approaching the one who first saw me, I did not know him. He was standing with Nduduzi Shezi. I did not even know Nduduzi Shezi. I thought Nduduzi Shezi was Mpumelelo. I only got to know that when I came. I did not know him even there in Imbali. I thought he was Nduduzi Shezi, and as I saw him standing with the other gentleman whom I did not know he fled, the other the other man. I said here he comes. I did not even ask that man. I simply shot at him.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who did you shoot? Did you shoot the man who was standing with Shezi, or did you shoot Shezi?

MR MWELI: I shot Shezi, thinking I’m shooting Mpumelelo Sithole.

MR SAMUEL: When did you discover that you shot the wrong person?

MR MWELI: That I discovered the following day when I was informed by Jerome that the person killed was not the one who we were looking for, in other words I have killed a wrong person.

MR SAMUEL: We’re now going to proceed to counts 13 and 13.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we pause there? Do I understand when you say that you learned that you killed the wrong person, that there was no intention whatsoever to kill Shezi?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t even know him?

MR MWELI: Yes, I did not know him.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn’t even know whether he belonged to the ANC or the IFP? You knew nothing about him?

MR MWELI: I did not know him. That I discovered recently.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR SAMUEL: For the sake of convenience we’ll deal with counts 13 and 14 together. It’s alleged that on the 13th of January 1989 and at Imbali township, you killed Thokozana Hlela, an adult male, and you killed Linda Moloi, and adult male, on the same day. Can you tell us what you know about the deaths of these two people?

MR MWELI: It was in the morning, on that day, the 13th of January. We were taking, we were accompanying Mr Awette to town.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just understand. When you say we, do you mean you, or you and others?

MR MWELI: We went in Mr Awette’s car. It was Hoosain, Mr Awette’s son, Beki Zulu, and myself in the car. We were accompanying him to town.

MR SAMUEL: When you say him, who were you accompanying?

MR MWELI: Mr Awette.

MR SAMUEL: Proceed.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm not sure, were you four people in the car, or three?

MR MWELI: We were four.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Awette Senior, and his son, and the two of you, Beki Zulu and yourself?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Proceed.

MR MWELI: As we were driving past the garage, filling station that is, the car was shot as we were on our way to town.

MR SAMUEL: You say the car was shot. You mean somebody shot at the car?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: That you were travelling in?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Go ahead.

MR MWELI: When Hoosain wanted to stop the car Mr Awette said no don’t stop, take me to town, but these boys you must run after, they have to be assaulted. We went to town. We left him in town. As we left him, because the person who had the firearm was Mr Awette. We left him town, we went, we drove back home after he had already said that these boys must be assaulted so that next time they don’t do what they did.

MR SAMUEL: Before you proceed. Did you see who shot at the motor vehicle that you were travelling in?

MR MWELI: I did not see the person who shot at the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to get my notes complete, you drove into town, you stopped, Mr Awette got out, is that right?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: You went into town, you stopped the car, Mr Awette got out. Is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then what happened?

MR MWELI: We went back to Imbali. We drove past the same filling station.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you go back to Imbali without Mr Awette?

MR MWELI: Yes. We left him in town.

CHAIRPERSON: What town are we talking about when he says drove into town?

MR MWELI: Right here in Pietermaritzburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it. So now you are telling us that you drove back to Imbali, you’re returning home?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now carry on. What happened then?

MR MWELI: We drove past the same filling station or garage, the car was not shot at that time, but people shouted. The people insulted at us at the garage as we were driving past, but it was not shot this time around.

CHAIRPERSON: The people at the garage were shouting at you?

MR MWELI: Yes, people nearby the garage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR MWELI: I went to get my firearm and I took, and I went to call Ndlandla, Ndlandla Luthuli, that is. I went to get him along.

CHAIRPERSON: When the people near the garage shouted at you. At that stage you were in the car. Is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes that is right.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say you went to fetch your gun. You didn’t have your gun with you in the car at the time?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, so where did you go to from the garage?

MR MWELI: We went to Awette’s house and parked the car and I took my gun from there and I went to get Ndlanda Luthuli as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: He asked as to where we were going. I told him we were going to the filling station, or the garage, there is something we have to sort out there.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: Just as we were about to arrive at the filling station or the garage at the corner of Mdubu and Mthombothi.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you walking now?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the name of the streets, the corner of? The name of the streets, what were they?

MR MWELI: Corner of Mdubu.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that please.

MR MWELI: Mdubu is M D U B U. Mdubu Road, and Mthombothi.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that.

MR MWELI: Its M T H O M B O T H I Road.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So what happened near the corner of these two roads?

MR MWELI: I found Thoza Ndlele together with Linda Moloi and I shot them.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on.

Yes, do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Why did you shoot these two people?

MR MWELI: It was because they were UDF members and the fact that they were stoning us when we were driving past them.

MR SAMUEL: You didn’t mention that before. You didn’t mention that you were being stoned previously. You said you were shot at. Why didn’t you mention it?

MR MWELI: I may have forgotten that, so to speak. Those were not the ones exactly who shot at us. Those were the boys near the garage as Mr Awette did say that we have to assault those boys, but then again, I did not see exactly as to who.

MR SAMUEL: Let’s clear this up. When you were shot at on your first journey, did the stoning take place before or after that?

MR MWELI: When we were going there. We used to drive into town. The car was not stoned, or they did not throw stones. Even when we were driving, returning, they did not. When we were driving back the car was not stoned it was not shot, but they were shocked when we were coming back from town. I would like to rectify that.

MR SAMUEL: I think you need to clear this up. When Mr Awette was in the car, you told us that the car was shot at. You said you don’t know who shot at the car. Where, at which place, was the car shot at?

MR MWELI: Those were the boys there at the filling station. We did not see as to who was shooting. I can’t lie. Mr Awette said these boys have to be assaulted because they are there, they disturbed us. I was in the car when he uttered those words.

MR SAMUEL: Just to proceed on this point before I move to the next one. When he referred to those boys, was he referred to a particular group of boys who you identified, or was he referring to the boys that you should identify and take action against?

CHAIRPERSON: They didn’t know anybody they could identify. He doesn’t know who shot at the car. You have a general statement by Awette which said "...those boys should be assaulted." That’s all he says, and nothing more about being able to identify them. Mr Awette makes his remark, you then go to town, you stop, you drop him in town, and you are on your way back. Now, you haven’t been very clear in your evidence as to at what stage anybody threw stones at your car. Have you forgotten the details, or what’s happening?

MR MWELI: I would like to apologise in saying they threw stones at the car. They did not throw any stones, but they insulted at us, shouting and insulting at us.

MR SAMUEL: Okay, you did tell us that, that on your return they insulted you. When you say they insulted you, what were they saying?

MR MWELI: When we were coming back they were shouting insulting and saying ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter does not know what he means by the word he has just uttered.

CHAIRPERSON: I’d like to hear the word. Utter that word.

INTERPRETER: Telegwini. They shouted and say go you telegwinis.

MR SAMUEL: Okay you speak English very well Mr Mweli, can you tell us what that word means to you?

MR MWELI: They mean you go, the telegwini word is an insult. At the time when you use that word you will be instigating a fight, that is an insult.

CHAIRPERSON: Don’t talk about instigating a fight. We want to know the meaning of the word telegwini please.

MR MWELI: It means something evil, the killers, the people who are perpetrating evil actions. People of Inkatha, that’s the meaning of the word. It will mean that.

CHAIRPERSON: Telegwini means people who do evil actions, is that what it means?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now precisely where was this. Where did this take place when you were insulted?

MR MWELI: We were driving past the garage going toward Fumulazi.

CHAIRPERSON: You were returning to Imbali? You were returning home at that time?

MR MWELI: Yes, that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: So when these words were uttered, you didn't stop, you carried on?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't recognise the people that were shooting at the vehicle, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: It's not quite clear to me, recognise in the sense of seeing them and being able to identify them, or didn't you see anybody at all, you only heard the shots?

MR MWELI: Yes we did not see the people who were insulting and those who shot.

ADV DE JAGER: So you heard shouts, and they were insulting you, but you didn't see them either. They were hidden. You couldn't see them?

MR MWELI: Yes. No, I would say they were not people from that area.

ADV DE JAGER: You could hear them, but could you see people standing there, or couldn't you see anybody, as far as the insults are concerned?

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us you couldn't see the people who were insulting you. Is that right?

MR MWELI: There were people there, but those who insulted us we did not see. But there were people standing around.

CHAIRPERSON: That's got nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're concerned with the people who insulted you, not the public who were there.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you came back and you saw two people standing there, Moloi and Ndlela, the two deceased?

MR MWELI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you shoot them?

MR MWELI: It was because we were shot. Now we were retaliating. We were sending a message that people should know and be aware of the fact that when we are attacked we'll attack back. When we are being shot we will shoot back as well.

ADV DE JAGER: But they could have been innocent passers-by standing there. You don't know whether they fired shots, or whether they insulted, or whether they were even part of the groups doing that.

MR MWELI: Yes, we were doing this indiscriminately. We were sending a message across.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say we, you mean you, because you were the one that shot, isn't that so?

MR MWELI: Yes, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You shot indiscriminately because you wanted to send a message.

MR MWELI: Each time we will be attacked we will retaliate as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I'm not talking about being attacked. You were not attacked. Then you shot indiscriminately, in other words, you didn't care who you shot, you just shot because you felt like shooting.

MR MWELI: Yes we did that because we were shot before by the UDF members.

CHAIRPERSON: No I'm talking about these two people. They may have had nothing to do with it. You came there, you saw two people, because you were angry at having been sworn at, you took out your gun and killed them.

MR MWELI: Yes, because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I want to get that down. Yes, what were you going to say, you killed them because?

MR MWELI: We shot because we were, they had just shot at just shot at us less than an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't shoot at you, the two people you killed, they didn't shoot at you. When you say they shot.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They shot, you don't know who it was that shot.

MR MWELI: We were not certain as to whether they were the ones who shot at us but we took it upon ourselves to shoot them because we were shot earlier on.

CHAIRPERSON: Now don't say we took it upon ourselves, say I took it upon myself, isn't that so?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know the people you shot at?

MR MWELI: Yes, I knew them.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't. He said that he didn't know who shot at them.

ADV SIGODI: No, no, no, did he know the people that he shot?

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know the deceased?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Which political party did they belong to.

MR MWELI: They were UDF members.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask them whether they were UDF members?

MR MWELI: No I did not ask them. I knew so.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew everybody in the area, that everybody was either UDF or ANC?

MR MWELI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: At any rate your evidence is that you shot indiscriminately, and those were your words.

MR MWELI: Not because we did not care about that, but the fact was we were shot at first, so we were shooting back. We did not know as to who did that, but we were shooting back so we can send this message across that we cannot sit back and relax when we're being attacked or shot at for that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Now you told us that you were shot at as you passed the garage? The first trip that you went, when Mr Awette was in the motor vehicle, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now how far is this garage from the one where you were insulted?

MR MWELI: Very close. When we talk about the garage it was not exactly where the garage was located, but we would be referring to the whole area of One Pendloga, that is and say it's next to the garage, that's how we used to refer to it.

MR SAMUEL: So are you saying then that you were shot at and insulted at the same area?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: And where were these two youngsters killed, in relation to that area that you just mentioned?

MR MWELI: Close to where we were shot.

MR SAMUEL: Earlier on you mentioned Mr Awette said those boys must be assaulted. You told us you didn't see who shot at you. How did Mr Awette come to the conclusion that it was some boys who shot at you?

CHAIRPERSON: You know he wouldn't know who it is. He makes a general statement that the boys that fired the shot should be assaulted. Isn't that what he was trying to say?

MR SAMUEL: His words are those boys. I think he was referring.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't know, nobody knew who shot, so when he said those boys he couldn't know who he was talking about.

MR SAMUEL: He probably didn't know specifically, but if I'm, just, I don't want to lead him onto my answer Honourable Chairperson, because there may be another interpretation, but I don't want to put words into his mouth because he's listening to what I'm saying to you. Thank you. Now how was Mr, who was Mr Awette talking to when, talking about when he said those boys must be assaulted?

MR MWELI: He was talking to me and Beki Zulu. People who were in the car. But he directed that to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, who was he talking about, when he said those boys?

MR MWELI: He was talking about the boys from One, the garage were UDF members.

MR SAMUEL: The boys from, you're talking about Stage One, who're UDF members, near the garage. That's your evidence?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Did boys gather near the garage, near Stage One?

CHAIRPERSON: On that day?

MR SAMUEL: Generally.

CHAIRPERSON: If it's a garage people would gather in and around a garage?

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson in the townships groups of people tend to hang out near shops and garages, etc., and it's my experience that people have their favourite hang outs around certain businesses or enterprises or entertainment centres.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a common experience, I agree with you.

MR SAMUEL: And the point that I'm making is that Mr Awette was specific in saying those boys. He must have given, been talking about people specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't talking about anybody specific. He merely said those boys should be assaulted because somebody from that area shot at their car. Nobody saw who it was. And you can't take it any further than that. He didn't know who shot at them either.

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Honourable Chairperson, but what I'm saying is he didn't say to the kids find out who shot at me and ...(intervention) Yes but he ...(indistinct) with a specific instruction those boys must be assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Specific only in the sense that they should be shot. There was nothing more specific than that. Who was he specific about?

MR SAMUEL: That's what I'm trying to establish, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How can you establish, because they don't know who it was.

MR SAMUEL: The point that I'm making is that obviously when the instruction was given he was referring to someone and this witness must tell us what those words mean, those boys. He could have been talking about all the boys in the area, he could have been talking about a specific group of boys who hung out near the garage.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't ask Mr Awette when he said those boys, did you mean all those boys or some of them. These are general words. As a result of being shot at Awette tells him those boys should be assaulted. He doesn't say those boys should be shot and killed, they should be assaulted.

MR SAMUEL: I take the Honourable Chairperson's point. The situation here is that the applicant is reciting events that took place over, almost a decade ago. He's not going to give evidence of every detail that one can conclude without exploring these possibilities that in fact these instructions were general or specific, and my attempt Honourable Chairperson is to try and establish from him what were those instructions. How he interpreted the instructions. Unless I'm given an opportunity to explore that the Committee may come to the, perhaps the right or perhaps the wrong conclusion.

ADV DE JAGER: Can I perhaps try to assist here? At that garage, would IFP members also take in petrol there, and visit the garage?

MR MWELI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Why not?

MR MWELI: They will be shot each time they get there, so they will not even go there.

ADV DE JAGER: Why was? Who was the owner of the garage?

MR MWELI: Mr Njala.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he an IFP member, or to which party did he belong?

MR MWELI: I did not know as to which party he affiliated to, but we will not go to his garage to fill up our cars because people around there, or the boys around the garage, would shoot at us. Not the petrol attendants, but the people around. In the Kombis they would get people out and kill them if our Kombis are seen nearby.

ADV SIGODI: Did any of the shots fired hit your car?

CHAIRPERSON: A shot was fired.

ADV SIGODI: Was it one shot?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Did the shot that was fired hit your car?

MR MWELI: It hit under the car, in front.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. Just to go back to the point. When Mr Awette said those boys, who did you think he was referring to?

MR MWELI: I knew that he was referring to the boys from Penduka, near the garage.

ADV DE JAGER: And to which party did those boys belong? Or did they belong to different parties?

CHAIRPERSON: ..(indistinct) the area.

MR MWELI: That area was ANC and UDF at the time. Members who were IFP left that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. With your permission I'll move onto count 15.

ADV DE JAGER: The other aspect, I don't know whether you wanted to canvass it, about the instruction to assault, which the Honourable Chairperson put to you, and what indeed happened.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you for the guidance Honourable member. This is an important point. You were instructed by Mr Awette to assault these people who shot at the motor vehicle, but you went beyond that, you went and killed these people. Can you tell us why?

MR MWELI: He didn't want to call a spade a spade when he said those boys needs to be assaulted he actually meant, he means to be killed. We know that. It wasn't a usual thing that he will say go kill, he will usually say go assault someone, but what he really means is to kill that person.

ADV SIGODI: When you shot these two people, do you know where you shot them, on their bodies, which part of their bodies?

MR MWELI: Head and chest.

ADV SIGODI: Were you far away when you were shooting, or were you close by?

MR MWELI: I started shooting at them as I was coming closer to them. I wasn't standing in one position.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're moving onto count 15.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you. It's alleged that on the 14th of January 1989 at Imbali, you attempted to kill Nkolelo Sithole. Can you tell us, firstly is this the Nkolelo Sithole that you mentioned in your evidence earlier?

MR MWELI: That's correct.

MR SAMUEL: Who did you receive instructions from to kill him

MR MWELI: Mr Jerome Mncwabe.

MR SAMUEL: Why did Mr Mncwabe want Mr Sithole dead?

MR MWELI: He was a troublesome person. He used to gather UDF members and also he used to provide UDF members with weapons. This is what Mr Jerome said to us, so we looked for Ubumi for a long time before we could find him.

One day Mr Jerome told me that it was difficult for us to get hold of Ubumi but on Saturday he usually goes, usually every Saturday morning he goes and buy bread, therefore it was going to be easy for us to wait for him on Saturday.

MR SAMUEL: On the 14th of January 1989 what happened?

MR MWELI: As I've already mentioned, he was one person we looked for him for a long time, we wanted to kill him. He was a member of UDF and he was good in gather UDF members together and to hold meetings.

MR SAMUEL: You told us that. Tell us what happened on the 14th of January 1989.

MR MWELI: In the morning - I slept at Beki Ngcobo's place the previous night, and then in the morning Jerome came to fetch me and I went to fetch Ndlandlaza and we went and waited for Mpumelelo since we were given the information that he would go to fetch the bread. And we were waiting for him there.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else accompanied you. You mentioned a name. I haven't been able to take down your evidence, you talk too fast. You left Beki Ngcobo's house. Jerome fetched you this morning and so you left. With who did you leave?

MR MWELI: We first went to Ndlanlaza's house. I was with Mr Jerome in Jerome's car.

ADV DE JAGER: Ndladlana is that Mr Luthuli too?

MR MWELI: Yes, it's Ndlandla Luthuli.

MR SAMUEL: When you say you were in Jerome's car, you're talking about Mr Jerome Mncwabe.

MR MWELI: Mncwabe.

MR SAMUEL: So who was with you?

MR SAMUEL: Ndlandla Luthuli and Mr Jerome. Mr Jerome dropped us at the corner.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR MWELI: He left us at Manaye's corner.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell that please.

MR MWELI: M A N A Y E. Manaye. At the corner of Manaye.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that's where you were dropped. What happened then?

MR MWELI: Ndlandla and myself proceed towards Mpumi's place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Proceed.

MR MWELI: We waited there. We didn't go to his house but we waited somewhere closer to his house. As he was coming out.

MR SAMUEL: Go ahead.

MR MWELI: He drove the car and as he was approaching the gate I started shooting at him.

MR SAMUEL: Did you want to kill him?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now proceed to counts 17, 18 and 19. It's alleged that all these offences took place on the 16th of January 1989 at Imbali, where you killed Bongani Jeremiah Sithebe, a 13 year old male, Sibusiso Frank Carrington Nduli, an adult male was killed, you killed Siphiwe Patrick Majosi, an 11 year old male, and you killed Beki Zazi Alpheus Ngwala, an adult male.

ADV SIGODI: Is he also applying for amnesty in respect of count 16, because I see that, I don't know if this is accurate but he was found not guilty on count number 16.

MR SAMUEL: Yes he was found not guilty.

ADV SIGODI: I thought you mentioned that. You see you mentioned Bongani Jeremiah Sithebe.

MR SAMUEL: Sorry, it's count 17, 18 and 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Nduli, Majosi and Ngwala?

MR SAMUEL: That's correct, Sir.

Okay you were initially charged with the death of four people on that day, and you were found not guilty in relation to one of them, and is it correct that you are applying for amnesty in respect of the deaths of the other 3 people, is that correct?

MR MWELI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel was this one incident, or are these three separate incidents?

MR SAMUEL: It was one incident, one killing spree.

Can you tell us firstly, did you kill these people?

MR MWELI: Yes, I did.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us why you killed them?

MR MWELI: Yes. ...(no English interpretation).

CHAIRPERSON: We can't hear the translation.

MR MWELI: After I've tried.

ADV DE JAGER: We couldn't hear. Could you repeat the translation please.

CHAIRPERSON: Right from the beginning.

MR MWELI: After I've tried to kill Mpumelelo Sithole when I failed I went back to Mr Jerome and then I told him, or I reported to him about the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR MWELI: When I told him he was surprised why I failed to kill Mpumelelo. He asked me if I was scared, and I told him no. He gave me a box full of cartridges, and then he told me that I was supposed to do something major, something terrible that will scare the people and people from One Section will decide to leave.

MR SAMUEL: Why did he want people from that Section to leave?

MR MWELI: He wanted the area to be IFP. Imbali as a whole to be IFP stronghold.

MR SAMUEL: What's this terrible thing that he wanted you to do?

MR MWELI: He said I must go to One Section, whatever I meet there I must kill it.

CHAIRPERSON: Please interpret properly. Did he say kill it?

INTERPRETER: Yes, kill it.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever he meets he must kill it?

INTERPRETER: Yes, he said whatever, it doesn't have to be a human being, even cats and dogs.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR MWELI: And he told me I mustn't be scared because these people won't do anything to me and if you were going to be successful the whole of KwaZulu Natal were going to be ruled by IFP, even if I would go to prison I was going to be released because the IFP had connections with the police and they're just assisting. I mustn't be scared.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to take down, you say that even if you were convicted, did he say convicted?

INTERPRETER: No, arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if I were arrested. Yes, please carry on from there. Even if you were arrested, then what?

MR MWELI: He said even if I was arrested I wasn't going to stay in prison.

ADV SIGODI: Why?

MR MWELI: Because they had connections with the police, and also if Inkatha were going to win we were not going to experience problems.

CHAIRPERSON: If we are successful Natal would be ruled by the IFP? Even if you were arrested you would not be going to stay in prison as they had connections with the police, is that what he said?

MR MWELI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say anything else?

MR MWELI: This is what he said, and then he gave me a muti to use so that when I arrive in One Section I'm not, I wasn't going to be scared.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR MWELI: I used that muti for a day, and then the following day, at night, I went to fetch Ndlandlazi, Kosi Ndlandlazi was brave and I used to trust Ndlandlazi than the rest of other members. I went and fetch him. I would tell Ndlandlazi some of the things, but some I wouldn't tell him, but he knew anyway some of the things.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: We went to One Section near the garage, that's where we were going to do this, because we had everything.

CHAIRPERSON: One Section, that's Section One?

INTERPRETER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You said you went to Section One and then what happened? Near the garage?

MR MWELI: I don't remember the name of the street we first went, but we met a certain boy.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry was that in daytime, night?

MR MWELI: At night.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand. You must have there, with Ndlandlazi. So you went near the garage, and then? You went near the garage and you don't know the name of the road?

MR MWELI: Yes, I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: I met Bongani.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you met Bongani.

MR MWELI: I shot him.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that the person referred to in count 16 where you were found not guilty?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This is Bongani Sithebe?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So what did you do when you met him?

MR MWELI: I shot him.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know him?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a child who was only 13 years old.

MR MWELI: Yes, he was my schoolmate.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do next?

MR MWELI: We proceeded on that street, the same street.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: We met Frank, I think we met Frank Ndluli afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MWELI: I also shot him and I left him there as well.

ADV SIGODI: Was Ndladla Nthuli also armed?

MR MWELI: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV SIGODI: On this particular day did he have a firearm?

MR MWELI: No, he didn’t.

ADV SIGODI: So you were the only person shooting.

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Frank also a schoolmate of yours?

MR MWELI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR MWELI: We proceeded on that street, we passed the garage, and then I met Patrick, together with Beki Zazi Kujai. Then also I shot them.

ADV SIGODI: Did you also know them?

MR MWELI: I only knew Alpheus Gwala.

ADV SIGODI: How were you choosing your targets?

MR MWELI: On this particular day I didn’t choose, I was killing everyone, everything, so that the people will be scared and leave the area.

ADV SIGODI: So you didn’t care whether or not a person was IFP or was ANC?

MR MWELI: One thing I knew, and everyone knew this, is that in that area, Section One, there were no IFP members. They were all ANC or UDF.

ADV SIGODI: These people you were shooting in the street, were you not?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat your question. These people he was shooting on the street were?

CHAIRPERSON: What did you say?

ADV SIGODI: I asked, he was shooting those people in the street, they were just walking in the street?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

ADV SIGODI: Did it not occur to you that some of them may be IFP people, even though its an ANC dominated area?

MR MWELI: No it didn’t occur to my mind, because I knew that there were no IFP members there in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Now before you go any further, the names you have given seem to differ from the names in the indictment, or am I wrong, Mr Samuel?

MR SAMUEL: To an extent. He’s give part of their names, but perhaps a different surname. May I just clear that up with evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if that would clear it up. He said he met Frank Ntluli. Now who is Frank Ntluli.

MR SAMUEL: Frank Carrington Ndluli on count 17, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then he met Patrick and ...(indistinct)

MR SAMUEL: Now Patrick is Siphiwe Patrick Majosi in count 18. And Beki Zazi is the Beki Zazi Alpheus Gwala in count 19. After you killed these people, did you leave the area?

MR MWELI: I went straight to Awette’s house.

MR SAMUEL: Did you report to anyone about the killings?

MR MWELI: I told Mr Awette.

MR SAMUEL: What was his response?

MR MWELI: He game me muti to go take a bath with, to use it to bath.

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson I’m not sure whether we want to break now before I move on to something new, or.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: Yes sir, thank you. Now you’d agree that these four people that you killed, and the three people that you applied for amnesty for, had done nothing to you personally, or you had known nothing that they did against the IFP, am I correct?

MR MWELI: Yes, I’ll say so.

CHAIRPERSON: And although they lived in an IFP area, sorry, although they lived in an ANC area they may not be ANC members. That’s a possibility isn’t it?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t say that they were not members of ANC. I knew Alpheus, that he was a member of UDF, and the others I didn’t know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so there’s a possibility that they were not members of the UDF, although they lived in that area?

MR MWELI: It wasn’t a usual thing that someone who wasn’t UDF would stay there, and same thing will apply to the area which was dominated by IFP. Everyone will be considered IFP in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: No, my question is that, it is possible that there were people who were not political. They lived in the area because it was convenient perhaps, to live in the area, without being political. That’s a possibility, isn’t it?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t deny that.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words there’s a possibility that some of these people although they lived there may not be members of the UDF, they may have lived there. Do you agree with that?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t deny that.

MR SAMUEL: You told us that Mr Mncwabe told you to go and do something big and that he wanted the people in that area, the UDF people, to leave Imbali. Did you know of other communities that left the area as refugees and fled from where they lived?

MR MWELI: Yes, I do.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us about these areas that you know of?

MR MWELI: In my area the Mtehembu family left there because they were not IFP and they went to stay somewhere. We also left Two Section, or Section Two, and we went to stay with IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: There may be people who might have left one area and gone to another area simply because they did not want to be involved in the violence. Is that not so?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t deny that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on. You’re going to start something new now?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be much longer?

MR SAMUEL: Probably about another fifteen minutes or so.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take the adjournment then.

MS PATEL: Will everyone please rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PUMANI DEREK MWELI: (s.u.o.)

MR SAMUEL: Mr Mweli when did you learn to use a firearm?

MR MWELI: I was taught by Jerome.

MR SAMUEL: Where did you learn to use a firearm?

MR MWELI: He taught me up the hill near Stage ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The question was when?

MR SAMUEL: You haven’t answered my first question. When?

MR MWELI: In 1987.

MR SAMUEL: Was this before or after you joined the ANC?

MR MWELI: After I was IFP member.

MR SAMUEL: And you were telling us that Mr Mncwabe took you up the hill. And where did he teach you to use a firearm?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Was it up a hill?

CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter very much? Is there something material is going to turn on it?

MR SAMUEL: Just to set the background in terms of how he was trained. Now, when you were taught how to use a firearm, why was it necessary for Mr Mncwabe to teach you how to use a firearm? You were fourteen years old at that stage, or thirteen years old.

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Why was it necessary for a thirteen year old to learn to use a firearm?

MR MWELI: It’s because he had told me that I have to know how to use the guns because the IFP members were being shot at and we have to know fully well to use the firearm, or to use firearms.

MR SAMUEL: To do what?

MR MWELI: So we could be in a better position of protecting Imbali township from the attackers.

MR SAMUEL: Now, it’s going to be suggested to you that the acts that you committed are criminal acts. That you, in fact, are not a political person, but you are a criminal. In prison, do you belong to any criminal gangs?

MR MWELI: No. In prison I’m not a criminal and I don’t, or I’m not anyhow connected to any criminal gangs as such. I have been given this letter to prove how uninvolved I am as far as criminal acts are concerned in prison. I don’t participate at all in prison. We would try to create peace instead between the IFP and ANC members who would be in prison, or who are in prison, instead.

MR SAMUEL: You’d like to hand this letter up to the TRC.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could read the contents into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the only copy?

MR SAMUEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Will you read it into the record please.

MR SAMUEL: From whom did you receive this letter?

MR MWELI: From Pietermaritzburg prison.

MR SAMUEL: For he record, it reads

"Pietermaritzburg male prison, Private Bag X9022, Pmburg 3200. 10th of February 1999.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission, KwaZulu Natal Region,

The Chairman, To Whom It May Concern,

I’m writing this report to explain the behaviour of the abovementioned prisoner. Pumlani Derek Mweli is a well-behaving prisoner who does not go with gangs and he is co-operative towards members as well as other inmates. He came in this institution while he was awaiting trial in 1989, January 23rd, and he was sentenced in 1990, August 29th. At that time he was transferred to Waterval. From there to Lowkop Prison, and back to Pietermaritzburg Prison. Since he came to prison we have not experienced trouble or problems with him. I will be glad if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission could consider the abovementioned information when it comes to behaviour and co-operation and discipline.

Yours faithfully, E.M. Mkhize, Unit Manager"

and it’s signed by this gentleman.

May I hand this up, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be handed in as Exhibit A.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, that may tend to be extenuation circumstances in a normal case, but we’re dealing with the requirements of the Act, so it’s ...(indistinct) but we’ll accept it.

MR SAMUEL: So as I was saying to you, it may be suggested that you were purely a criminal. Are there opportunities in prison for you to join criminals, and the criminal gangs?

MR MWELI: I don’t agree with those people because those are the ones who harass other inmates in various ways for various reasons, so that I told myself that I will, I am a political prisoner, I have to be well-behaved in prison.

We will meet, endeavour to facilitate meetings to meet with the ANC members to create peace and form good relationship with the two parties. Even the complainant in Nduduma is aware and fully aware of this as he was coming from ANC and I will be coming from IFP to create peace and good relationship between the two, in prison.

MR SAMUEL: Now, just to take you a little back. You were arrested initially by, was it a police officer Meyer?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: How did it come about that police officer Meyer arrested you?

ADV DE JAGER: Was that on the 27th of January 1989?

MR MWELI: Lieutenant Meyer, I was told by Mr Awette that the police are looking for me, and it will only be appropriate for me to take myself to them. So that I would be fully supported by them. They will secure the services of legal representatives for me and whatever I encounter as a problem I should relay or convey that to them, they will be there for me.

To an extent that even when I get convicted they will give me the support I will need throughout. And I took myself, together with my mother. Lieutenant Meyer came to fetch us from Awette’s and we went to Halfway House police station, Riot investigation unit.

MR SAMUEL: Was a firearm handed over to Lieutenant Meyer as well?

MR MWELI: Yes, the firearm I was using was a old one, seven point six five, from Mr Awette.

ADV SIGODI: The question is, was it handed over to the police?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Now, whilst you were in prison, the charges with withdrawn against you, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes, they were withdrawn.

MR SAMUEL: What happened to you thereafter?

MR MWELI: I was put under the state of emergency, and Lieutenant ...(indistinct), at the time it was ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t understand the interpreter. What is he saying? Charges were withdrawn against him later on, what happened?

INTERPRETER: He was detained under the state of emergency.

MR MWELI: I was put under the state of emergency and detained, thirty days, for thirty days that is.

CHAIRPERSON: When were the charges withdrawn against you?

MR MWELI: After I appeared at the Court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want to know when that was.

MR MWELI: I don’t quite remember the date, but I think it was February or January.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Were you then subsequently recharged, convicted and sentenced?

MR MWELI: Yes, I was recharged, and I was convicted after a year. From that time until 1999 I have never committed any crime in prison, ever since my stay there.

MR SAMUEL: Now, just one aspect I want you to tell us a little bit more about, and that is that some of the people you said you killed, because they were fighting you. Some of the people you killed surely because they were members of the UDF or ANC as you put it. Why, what went through your mind when you killed people who just belonged to different political organisations? How did you view them?

MR MWELI: What I will say is there was this war in Imbali. There was this rife violence between us blacks, and at the time when we would fight, or when we were fighting, shooting at each other, or the one group shooting at the other, there would also be other times where sometimes there will be those fights that were happening unexpected, or take place unexpected or unplanned, and I think some of the people who are here and who will testify to this truth will agree with me that this did happen or occurred in this area in various ways and means.

And each time there will be some attack that will break, anybody who would be caught in the crossfire will bear the consequences of the attack. This is why you find that oftentimes you will have young kids or children who will be killed, and when my sister’s house was burned there was a four year old boy who also was caught in this ordeal. Those were things that transpired in the area, and those are atrocities that people suffered in the place of Imbali at the time of violence. This is, what I’m trying to say here is I was not a criminal but the circumstances and the situation that prevailed at the time forced me to do or commit the acts that I did.

MR SAMUEL: Now, over the break, the interval, you introduced me to Ndlaldla Luthuli, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: And I asked him to come and testify on your behalf, in your presence, is that correct?

MR MWELI: I have no problem with that. It rests upon him if he does want to come out.

MR SAMUEL: What was his response?

CHAIRPERSON: Do we want to hear all this? You either call a man or you don’t call him. We don’t want to hear what transpired between you and a potential witness.

MR SAMUEL: Purely to, a lot of what he says is going to go uncorroborated before this Commission, and there is a reason why he is not calling those witnesses, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s a responsibility he takes.

MR SAMUEL: Yes, I’m just saying that it’s beyond his control that those witnesses are not before the Commission.

ADV DE JAGER: Is Mr Luthuli not prepared to give evidence?

MR SAMUEL: No, he is not prepared to give evidence. He has not applied for any amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Now, after the killing of the four people, did you go into hiding at some stage?

CHAIRPERSON: You’re talking about counts 19, 18, 17 and 16?

MR SAMUEL: That’s correct, Honourable Chairperson.

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: Where were you in hiding?

MR MWELI: Jerome took us to Mr Ntombela’s house. That’s where we hid. Yes if I’m not mistaken we were there for a week. That’s where we hid away from the police.

MR SAMUEL: Now who is Mr Ntombela?

CHAIRPERSON: Who is we? The we you are talking about.

MR SAMUEL: Can you tell us who, when you say we, who are you referring to?

MR MWELI: Together with Ndladla Luthuli.

MR SAMUEL: Now who is Mr Ntombela?

MR MWELI: He is a member of Parliament and an IFP leader here in Natal Midlands.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he a member of the KwaZulu Natal Parliament, or the national Parliament?

MR SAMUEL: You heard the Honourable Chairperson’s question. Is he a member of the parliament in this province, or is he a member of the national Parliament.

MR MWELI: In KwaZulu Natal. MP. Member of KwaZulu Natal.

MR SAMUEL: You have done many, many, many bad things, especially to the people, some of whom are seated out there, from Imbali. Do you want to say anything to them?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR SAMUEL: You may take this opportunity.

MR MWELI: What I will say, the first of all I would like to apologise and ask for forgiveness to all friends and parents of the victims, or the ones that I killed, and I am pleading for forgiveness from the community of Imbali for all the atrocities I committed in the area. It was not because of any personal malice whatsoever, but I was coerced by the situation that prevailed at the time, politically so to speak.

Some of the things that I committed, it was due to the fact that I was under the influence of umuti, ...(indistinct) therefore, this is why at the end I forwarded an amnesty application so I may be afforded opportunity to ask myself for apology and for forgiveness from the people that I have wronged and I have sinned against, because it’s not that I enjoyed it and I am marvelling over what I committed.

I realise how much this is haunting and I want to relay and convey this to them so they know how awful I feel and the remorse I am carrying relating to the acts that I undertook. And my parents now are the ones who suffer the consequences of the acts, and I am pleading for their forgiveness. I don’t think in my right mind I would ever commit such evil and brutal, fatal actions that I committed. I had intended, and my aim was to continue with my studies, and I would so wish to continue with my studies and further my education.

I would also like to direct my forgiveness to the President Nelson Mandela and Minister Nthebezi as well for all the things that I did in the country. I am, however, feeling very bad and I now feel ostracised at the same time, I feel isolated from the people I used to be close to. I know it’s quite difficult for those people to accept my apology, but be that as it may I am asking for forgiveness from them.

MR SAMUEL: I am done, I’m complete, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUELS

CHAIRPERSON: The people who have been disturbed by the evidence, will you please leave the hall so that the work can carry on.

Can we carry on?

ADV DE JAGER: Is there anything further Mr Samuel?

MR SAMUEL: I’m complete, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Mr Mweli before I deal with the actual substance of your application, I want to concentrate on certain aspects relating to your application. I see that you made two applications, and I refer to the first application which is from pages 2 to 8 in the bundle, and the second application which is from pages 9 to 18 of the bundle. Can you tell me why you saw fit to make two applications?

MR MWELI: The reason behind this, the other one, I was not the one who filled it, and it took so long before I heard from the offices, so I thought I should fill the second one, because the first one, the people who filled it and wrote everything in it, were IFP members. Now the second one, I was the one. I was thinking the first one might have not reached the office, since I did not get any response at the time, so I felt maybe I should forward the second application.

MR WILLS: I also note that there are some material differences between the first application and the second application. Are you aware of that? I will be going through those.

CHAIRPERSON: They are material? And bearing in mind that one was filled out for him by somebody else?

ADV DE JAGER: As far as the explanation is concerned for the second application, you could perhaps also look at the letter written on page 26.

MR WILLS: I’m alive to that, thank you Mr Chairperson. Are you aware that there are material difference between the first application and the second application?

MR MWELI: This is why I mentioned earlier on that the other application was Mr Hlela who filled it, who came at Waterval and were the ones who filled up our application forms. By seeing delay of any response I sort of thought I should fill the other form. Labouring under the impression that the other form could have not reached the office in the first place I felt and deemed it fit to fill the second one.

MR WILLS: I see, to be specific, that in the first application you make the allegation that you weren’t committing these crimes as a result of instructions from anybody, and I refer you to question eleven in this regard, where you specifically said that you did this on your own initiative, and if the Committee will bear with me, I’m referring to page 6, and it’s in answer to question 11(a). Whereas in your second application, in answer to the same question, you say that you did this on orders from IFP, high ranking IFP officials, if the translation is correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Which appears on what page, the second one?

MR WILLS: 23, Mr Chairperson.

Now why is there this difference? It doesn’t appear to me as if your earlier answer of a delay, simply a delay, explains that.

MR MWELI: This is why I mentioned to you Mr Wills that these applications are different. The other one I did not fill, the other one I did fill. On the 10th of November 1997 I filled myself this application. The other one were the leaders that filled them on our behalf.

MR WILLS: Are you saying that you were influenced by the leaders to not put the correct information down in the first application? Because I see that you signed the first application before a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR MWELI: I’m still trying to explain one aspect here. Other applications we did not fill them ourselves. The one that I know and I stand by will the one that I filled myself on the 10th. That’s the one, my way of I know. When I was also enquiring at the same time as to what was happening because I could get no response at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you must just try and answer the question, please. There are some differences between the first application and the second application. Answer this point about one difference, and he’s asking you to comment on that difference. Have you got a copy of the forms before you?

MR MWELI: No, the copy I have is the 10th of November copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Let him have a copy of the form please.

MR WILLS: Can I help you, I’ll just repeat my question. The material difference that I’m concerned about is that in your first application you say you performed these acts on your own initiative, and that is diametrically opposed to the answer you gave to the same question on your second application, where you indicate that the atrocities were committed on instructions of high ranking IFP persons. Now I’m wanting to know why there is that difference?

MR MWELI: What I will say to you Mr Wills is that the IFP leaders did not want to be implicated, that’s one other reason I will furnish to you, that they did not desire of us to divulge more information in relation to their names as well, so we had to keep the names and not disclose their names. This is why at the end I deemed it fit to disclose the names, and I realised that I am the one who is suffering and staying in prison for no reason at all except that I am keeping away their names, so it’s time I disclose their names.

MR WILLS: I want to know did anybody from the IFP come and tell you, in prison, not to divulge the names of the persons who gave you the orders?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR WILLS: And who was that person, or persons?

MR MWELI: The first one Mr Ed Tillet who came to Waterval.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell it? What is the name again?

MR MWELI: Ed Tillet.

MR WILLS: Ed Tillet? I think that spelt T I L L E T.

MR MWELI: And Mr Hlengo, who was a captain.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was what?

MR MWELI: He was a captain.

CHAIRPERSON: In the police force?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR WILLS: Was there anybody else?

MR MWELI: And Mr Awette and Jerome.

MR WILLS: Now.

CHAIRPERSON: Were all these people together when they told you not to disclose the identity of those who ordered you? Or did they come to you separately?

MR MWELI: They came separately. People who used to usually come to me was Mr Hlengwa and Nicky Britz.

CHAIRPERSON: Nicky Britz? That’s another name. Did Britz have anything to say to you?

MR MWELI: He didn’t say anything, but they usually come to visit members of the IFP who were in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: When did Awette and Jerome come to you?

MR MWELI: I was still in Maritzburg. This was before I was sentenced, when I was still awaiting trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Before your trial had started?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it suggested to you that in your trial you must not disclose the names of these people?

MR MWELI: Yes, they said in my trial I shouldn’t reveal their names. They were going to try and help me so that I was going to be released, because they were scared that the image of the organisation was going to be ruined.

CHAIRPERSON: And Awette and Jerome also spoke to you, that is before your trial started?

MR MWELI: Yes, those were the ones who talked to me before the trial started. Mr Hlengwa only said so after I was sentenced. This is when we were applying for amnesty to the TRC.

ADV SIGODI: Did Mr Hlengwa address you as a group of IFP people, or did he come to you specifically?

MR MWELI: He knew me very well, because we used to meet in meetings. He called me aside and said to me, the incidents which I was implicated, or which I’ve done, they implicate too many people’s names so I mustn’t reveal those names, and he said I must just write my application and never reveal somebody’s name, and I agreed.

But later I regretted, I said to myself I needed to write another application to the TRC and reveal the truth, because other inmates advised me as well that it was very crucially important for me to tell the truth, and that’s why I’m telling the truth today. If I didn’t say anything it’s because I’ve forgotten. I was still a child at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR WILLS: I see the first application was filled in in May 1997, sorry in April 1997, on the 11th April. And the second application was filled in just over a month later in May 1997, is that correct?

MR MWELI: That’s correct, and if I’m not mistaken, one I was still in Waterval Prison, and the other one I was in Westville Prison. The one which I filled in Westville Prison, is the one that I personally filled.

MR WILLS: Yes, but what I’m driving at is the real truth as to why there are two applications, isn’t because of the delay. It’s because the first application you filled in was not the truth. It was only the second one where you attempted to tell the truth. Is that correct? That is the real reason why there are two applications before the Committee today.

MR MWELI: That’s not the only reason. The second one I did it personally. I wanted to tell the truth. That’s my handwriting if you look at the second application. I wrote it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR WILLS: Can I assume, can I ignore the first application as being a lot of rubbish?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t say so, but you can decide.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should just confine yourself to what you’ve found as inconsistencies, for the time being, if there are any others.

MR WILLS: I’ll refer to question 1.1(a)(2) on the first application. Sorry, sorry it’s not, it’s question 9(a)(4) on page four. It starts actually on page 3 of the papers and is continued on page 4, but I’m referred to the answer to the questions of the nature and particulars of the act, where you essentially say that the acts in respect of which you are applying for amnesty were committed during open fights or war between the IFP, and five of the murders were committed by you when you met the deceased on the road. And then, in the second application in answer to the same question you say you were shooting randomly at people in ANC strongholds. That is on page 20 Mr Chairperson. Which one of those is the truth?

MR MWELI: I would like you to repeat the question to me.

ADV DE JAGER: This one is saying he’s shot some of them on the road, and some were attacked in their houses, because they were members of UDP. Some people in the attempted murder cases were found on the road, and some were attacked in their houses. In the other says he shot randomly at people in the ANC strongholds. What we had was to destroy our opponents. Is there a material difference?

MR WILLS: I’m really concentrating Mr Honourable Member on the issue of the fight, where, you know in relation to the border evidence, particularly Judge Wilson’s judgment, it’s clear from that objectively that these incidents occurred in UDF strongholds and not in direct relation to a fight. So in this first aspect on page 3, where he refers to an open fight between persons, I haven’t heard any evidence of that in chief. I haven’t seen any evidence of that in the record, in specific relation to the people who were killed, and that’s what I’m trying to establish.

ADV SIGODI: But Mr Wills can we not agree that, I mean, this person was not assisted by legal representative. All these applications are never drawn up meticulously. What this fight could actually mean is the tension between the UDF and the IFP and that is not disputed at this, is it your case that there was no tension between the IFP and the UDF? Is it really material? I mean the way it has been phrased, does it make any difference as to what he has said here today?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills I note the point that you are trying to make. How significant it is is another matter, we will have to decide at a later.

MR WILLS: I’ll leave it then, it’s just, I will leave that difference. I’ll go onto the next one. You say in question 10(a) on the first application that you were defending the community who were attacking you. Now, in answer to the same question in the second application you say you wanted to annihilate ANC members because they were in alliance with communists. Now, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where’s that?

MR WILLS: Page 21, and page 4. Now, I’m really interested in the answer to question 10(a) on the first application, that you were defending the community, because it seems clear on the evidence that you’ve given and the evidence which was procured by other witnesses at the trial, and in that regard Mr Chairperson, I am having note of the finding made by the judge in his judgment on the merits, and I have the page of that, where he indicated that the, all of these incidents occurred in ANC strongholds. Page 51 of the record where, I quote

"It is clear from the general plan that the majority of the incidents giving rise to these charges occurred in areas of Imbali reputed to be UDF areas or UDF strongholds."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don’t understand what is your question.

MR WILLS: My question is, is that when you say you were defending, in your first application, effectively that is incorrect in that you were going out of your area to attack the UDF people in their area, is that correct?

MR MWELI: I would like you to only refer me to the second application, because the first one, those are the things, or the information, that I didn’t provide. I’d like you to confine me, or your questions, taking from application number two, because the first one was written by Mr Cele, I don’t have answers to that one.

MR WILLS: Well I’m sorry, you didn’t understand my last question, or earlier when I said the first application, I meant must I just ignore it? Because you didn’t, although you signed it, it didn’t contain information which you provided, is that correct? Then we can finish this process.

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

MR WILLS: And essentially an IFP official came to you and he filled out the application and you just signed it. Is that right?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

MR WILLS: And that IFP official was Captain Hlengwa and Mr Tillet.

MR MWELI: Yes, Captain Hlengwa. Captain Hlengwa is the one who filled the application.

MR WILLS: I, before I go onto the incidents, I just want to ask you about the other aspects that you were, the other incidents that you weren’t convicted on. You know the indictment against you, and I know what your defence was, essentially in all of the incidents, except for the first count, you denied any knowledge of the incidents. Is that still your position today in respect of those matters you were convicted for, you were convicted on?

MR MWELI: Are you referring to case number one?

MR WILLS: I know count 1 you were, I’ll go through it. I’ll make it easier for you. I’ll go through count by count. In count two you were acquitted, where it is alleged that on the 28th of October 1998 you attempted to kill Joseph Ndodo Duma. Do you know anything about that?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we should confine ourselves to the matter for which he is applying for amnesty. You see we haven’t heard all the evidence. The judge heard the evidence and came to certain conclusions. Yes. We can’t be sitting in judgment on a judgment given by somebody at the end of a trial.

MR WILLS: No, I understand that Mr Chairperson, but for two reasons, I accept your judgement, I accept your ruling. The reason I’m asking this question is that I’m representing a lot of people out here who want to know what happened to those persons, and they are at this stage sitting without any knowledge as to how their people actually were killed.

ADV DE JAGER: But in this particular count it’s an attempt to kill Mr Ndodo Duma so I presume he’s alive and he could tell what happened to him?

MR WILLS: Mr Committee Member I was going on to the other counts, which obviously include some murders, but be that as it may, I’ll contain myself to the other issues.

CHAIRPERSON: Get down to what you think should be the real grounds for opposing the application.

MR WILLS: Mr Mweli, regarding count 1. You indicated in your evidence in chief, that essentially the reason why you shot Sibusiso Sibisi was that because he was approaching you together with several other person with spears and you felt threatened, and you made out as if you were defending yourself. Do you recall that?

MR MWELI: What I’ve said about Sibusiso was, I was going to Ray’s place, I met him, he was with other UDF members. They came towards me, they had spears, I shot him. Not that I was protecting myself, but I knew that Sibu was a UDF member, active UDF member, and we were fighting.

MR WILLS: I must differ with you Mr Mweli. Clearly your evidence was interpreted correctly, indicated that you felt threatened by them coming towards you and that’s why you shot, and you did that on two, you gave that evidence on two separate occasions in your evidence in chief. Are you changing your version now?

MR MWELI: I wasn’t scared when they were coming towards me because I knew that I was armed with a gun. He was a person that who was on the opposite side of the war. I knew him as someone who was UDF and I was IFP, and I was lucky they didn’t have guns with them.

MR WILLS: So are you saying that had they not come for you, had they not come in your direction with spears, you would not have shot them?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t know. I can’t answer whether yes I was or no I wasn’t. All I can tell you is that they were my enemies and usually whenever we met with them we will fight.

MR WILLS: Yes, the truth is, isn’t it Mr Mweli, that on that day they did not approach you with spears. Nobody was armed on that day. All they did was they enquired as to why you were assaulting the woman on the side of the road, and then you shot them.

MR MWELI: That’s not true.

MR WILLS: Can you tell me, if that isn’t true, why did you not mention this in your trial? Because this one of the only instances in your trial where you offered some form of defence and admitted being on the scene. Why did you not tell this to the judge? This aspect of them coming to threaten you.

MR MWELI: Number one, I didn’t plead guilty on this case, therefore I didn’t see any reason why I should reveal that they came towards me, after I said I wasn’t guilty and I wasn’t there. I pleaded not guilty, therefore I didn’t tell the judge the truth, now I’m telling the Commission what happened.

MR WILLS: Well I must put it to you, and I’ve taken instructions from Mr Sibisi, and he’s indicated to me clearly, on that day, he and the one person that he was with, was not armed, and he didn’t approach you in a manner that he was going to attack you.

MR MWELI: What I’m saying is what I’ve already said here. He wasn’t alone. He was together with UDF members. That’s all I can say. But I wouldn’t say he’s lying if he’s saying he was with someone, only two, but he knows in his heart there were more than two.

MR WILLS: You also say in relation to that count that you weren’t fighting. Your evidence in chief is that you weren’t fighting with the woman, I think her name was Sandile, who appeared to be your girlfriend. Is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes. No, we were not fighting, we were just walking together. We were from my place, and I didn’t see any reason why we should walk all the way from my place to that area for me to start fighting there with her.

MR WILLS:   Can you tell this Committee why she said to the Court, and I’m quoting from page 54 of the judgment: "She confirmed the evidence of the two previous witness that the accused had assaulted her, and when the other two approached her he put his hand on his hip and she saw a shining object."

So she confirmed to the Court that you had assaulted her. Was she lying to the Court?

MR MWELI: I would say she was lying, because after that we were not in good terms, after Sibu got injured we were not in good terms, she even left that area.

MR WILLS: I put it to you that you’re not being entirely truthful to the Committee in respect of this incident. Do you want to comment?

MR MWELI: What I can say is that everything I’ve said here, Sibu can actually tell that I am telling the truth, even if he cannot tell you, but deep down in his heart he knows, and the only thing I can say is that if I didn’t say more it’s because I’ve forgotten because of the time. This thing happened a long time ago.

MR WILLS: I want to refer you to page 27 of the record where part of your letter that you wrote to the Amnesty Committee, and this was the letter where you were enquiring about the delay. This is the letter you wrote dated the 10th of November 1997. I specifically want to refer you to paragraph 4. You say there ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Does he have that letter before him?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR WILLS: You say there in paragraph 4, and I quote

"the instructions came from the following persons, or leaders. One, the member of parliament Mr D Ntombela."

Do you see that?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR WILLS: Is this true?

MR MWELI: What I’m saying about Mr Ntombela is that when police were looking for me, he provided a place for us to hide in his own house, at about a week. I’ve mentioned him because he knew all along about these incidents and who committed them.

MR WILLS: What I’m wanting to establish, is you say here that he gave you instructions. Did he in fact give you instructions, and if so, what instructions did he give you?

MR MWELI: No, he didn’t give me instructions, but he provided a place for me to hide from the police.

MR WILLS: So why did you say in your letter to the Amnesty Committee that he gave you instructions?

MR MWELI: What I thought is that when I testify here before the Commission, his name was going to come out, so I just provided IFP leaders who were involved, or who knew about these incidents. He knows, or he also provided a place for us to hide from the police.

MR WILLS: When you say that he knew about the incidents, are you referring to all the incidents that you’re applying for amnesty in respect of?

MR MWELI: I took the decision to put his name down here so that I wanted the Commission to approach him and ask him if he knew about the incidents at Imbali, but he never gave me a specific instruction to go and do whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s move on from that point.

ADV SIGODI: I just want to find out, was Mr Ntombela an IFP member, a leader of the IFP, then, at that time? Was he a leader of the IFP at that time?

MR MWELI: He was the member of parliament in KwaZulu and he was Vice-chairman in Midlands.

MR WILLS: Just one quick point to clear up. You said in your evidence in chief that you were the chairperson of the ward for youth, is that right?

MR MWELI: That’s correct. My secretary was Mafiki Zondi. The chairman was Derick, and Kwane Hlahla was the treasurer. I was the Vice-chairman.

MR WILLS: I see a number of the acts, the shootings, were committed with particular FN Browning firearm. Do you agree with that?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

MR WILLS: Where did you get this firearm from?

MR MWELI: From Jerome. From Mr Mncwabe.

MR WILLS: Do you know where he got it from?

MR MWELI: No I didn’t ask him. I don’t know where he got that firearm.

MR WILLS: Well you know, and I’m sure you would have realised by sitting in your trial, that the firearm came from a murdered policeman, Mr Jonah.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that matter really?

MR WILLS: Please Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter as far as he is concerned because he was given it by somebody else. The history of it may not be known to him.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson I’m just representing Mrs Jonah and I’m taking this opportunity to quickly find out if he knows anything about this. But be this as it may, I won’t ask the question. I wasn’t going to dwell on that very long. Should I not proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes ...(indistinct) does he know if that firearm was stolen?

MR WILLS: Do you know whether that firearm was stolen?

MR MWELI: I heard about this when I was in Court.

MR WILLS: And you know nothing about what happened to Mr Jonah?

MR MWELI: I heard in Court that he was murdered and they charged me for this murder, but I didn’t have information, therefore they withdrew the charges against me.

MR WILLS: Now I just want to concentrate on the point about you attacking ANC persons just because they lived in an area. I just want to tell you emphatically that the person who died in count 16, Mr Sithebe, was not a member of the ANC, and so too was the person in count 18 not a member of the ANC at the time. The name of that is Mr S P Majosi. So too, was Mr Shezi, Nduduze Shezi, the person murdered in count 12. In fact, turning to count 12, Mr Shezi was visiting some people from Imbali and he’d arrived the previous night and was on his way to leave, to go back home, when he was killed. Are you aware of that?

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn’t that the person he said he mistakenly believed was Mr Sithole? He didn’t know him.

MR WILLS: Yes.

MR MWELI: Yes, that’s the one I mistakenly killed.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you were asked about the other people.

MR WILLS: Did you know about the person Mr Sithebe and Mr SP Majosi?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bongani Jeremiah Sithebe. Do you know whether he was an ANC person? But he’s not applying for amnesty for him, in that case. And it’s put to you that Mr Majosi in count 18 wasn’t an ANC person either. Patrick Majosi. Do you know whether he was ANC or UDF?

MR MWELI: What I’ve said about counts 19, 18, 17 and 16, was the instruction came to me and I was supposed to go to that area and kill anything, everything, including the dogs. I was supposed to kill.

MR WILLS: Did you kill any dogs that night?

MR MWELI: No I didn’t meet a dog.

MR WILLS: Do you know that the victim in count 17, that’s Mr Ndluli, was a retarded individual who suffered from severe epilepsy, and he was in fact severely retarded?

CHAIRPERSON: We haven’t had an answer to that question. Your question is whether he knew that Mr Ndluli was a retarded person. Is that it? Did you know that?

MR MWELI: No I didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: It would have made no difference, isn’t it?

MR WILLS: When you were given instructions of that nature, did you not question that? Because I, to be frank Mr Mweli, I cannot understand how you can just randomly kill person who you don’t even know. I would have thought that you would have at least questioned those instructions, and said to your leader, Mr Mncwabe, how can we do this?

CHAIRPERSON: What is your question you want to put to him?

MR WILLS: Did you not question Mr Mncwabe, or did you not feel this instruction was wrong?

MR MWELI: What I can say, whenever I was given an instruction I would carry them, because we were also experiencing incidents like this, and when someone instructs you to do something like this you think of our own personal experience because I myself was attacked one time, I was almost killed inside the house. So you think that they are capable of doing this to me, why shouldn’t I do the same to them.

CHAIRPERSON: The answer is that he never questioned any instructions. And he didn’t think it necessary to ask.

MR MWELI: Even though sometimes you will ask, but as a person who are living there you know the situation in that area, you see no reason why you should ask those questions because you knew this was something which was going on.

MR WILLS: I see in a number of the counts, and what comes to mind specifically is count 1, there are others, where you shot at people who were fleeing from you. You shot at them when they were running away and they got injured in the back. Do you agree with that?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR WILLS: And others you shot at very close range.

MR MWELI: Yes, it was the situation. Sometimes you will find cases like that. You will shoot people at close range.

MR WILLS: Did you enjoy killing the people at the time?

MR MWELI: What I can say is that at that time I didn’t enjoy, but the situation and circumstances forced me to do so, and this occurred frequently, therefore we got used to that even though it’s a bad thing to kill, but it was frequent.

MR WILLS: Why do you say you were forced to do that? There are lots of IFP members who haven’t killed people, or killed twenty people, or killed eight people, or seven people. What do you mean when you say you were forced to do this?

MR MWELI: I’m not saying that there was someone forcing me to do so, but the situation was forcing me to do so. As a person who are there, who is living in that situation, you sometimes take that decision that you’re going to participate.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve been trying to understand your evidence and I think now you’ve cleared it up, that you were not forced to do any of the things that you did, simply because you were convinced by the circumstances in which you found yourself, that it was quite alright for you to do what you did.

MR MWELI: What I can say is that in that area where we were, the people were speaking IFP and the only language you could hear as a child growing there is fights between Inkatha and ANC. As a child you eventually become like that, you believe in those things. I was staying with my sister and I wasn’t involved, but the situation caused me, because her house was burned down and her property and her goods, also my goods, her husband, her child, therefore I was forced to become active politically.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to put it once again. You weren’t forced by anybody, you were forced by your experiences in the area. That’s what you’re trying to say?

MR MWELI: No I’m not saying so. I’m not saying that I was doing this for my own benefit. These were instructions, and as an operative I had to listen to my commanders, my leaders, if they were instructing me to climb up to the house I would do so.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that you said that you were forced at the time by circumstances, to do what you did, and not by anybody else. You did say that, didn’t you?

MR MWELI: Yes, that’s correct. There was no-one who forced me, who said to me if I don’t do this he was going to kill me, but we used to get instructions that we should do this.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that you got instructions, and you willingly carried out those instructions. You could have declined to carry out those instructions.

MR MWELI: Yes, I wouldn’t deny.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV SIGODI: Can I just clear this up with you? You said that you would get instructions, and did you believe, did you believe that what you were doing was the right thing when carrying out those instructions?

MR MWELI: I have much respect for Jerome, most of the things he was saying we were supposed to listen and carry those instructions, even though some you wouldn’t like, like as I’ve mentioned before about umuti, how they used to give us muti. Now I’ve been in prison for ten years now, I know that what I’ve done wasn’t the right thing to do and now I’m left alone and that’s why I’ve taken the decision to come before the Committee and before the people whom I’ve hurt so that I ask for apology and forgiveness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Just before I leave that point, something worries me Mr Mweli. You’ve indicated that you often went with Ndlandla Luthuli on these violent escapades, because you sad that Ndlandla Luthuli was very brave. Right?

MR MWELI: Yes, and he wouldn’t reveal things that we were doing, or I was doing when he was there. He wouldn’t reveal the information to people except to the person who instructed us.

MR WILLS: Yes, you’ve also indicated that on these escapades it was only you who was armed, with a firearm, is that correct? What I’m interested in is, if you didn’t enjoy killing as much, why didn’t you sometimes give the weapon to Luthuli? Why was it always you who put the fatal bullet in somebody’s head?

MR MWELI: The gun was given to me to be used by me. It wasn’t going to be according to instruction if I would give the gun to somebody else when not instructed to do so. Not because I was enjoying killing people.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s move on.

MR WILLS: Turning to count 3. The instruction that you got from Mr Gasela in count 3. Could you just tell us what he said to you in relation to Mr Duma? Why was Mr Duma to be killed?

MR MWELI: Ndo was wanted by IFP members because he was one person who was involved with IFP attacks, too many of them.

MR WILLS: Did you see this yourself, or was it just other persons’ information?

CHAIRPERSON: That he was wanted by the members of his organisation?

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I wanted to know if he knew himself whether this was the case. Yes, that’s what I’ve asked. Did you see this yourself?

MR MWELI: This what I’ve heard about him. The only I knew personally is that he was a UDF member, because he was closer to my place, and also something that I heard about him was that he was also involved in he attack which was launched at my sister’s house.

MR WILLS: So you killed this person on the basis of hearsay information? Or you attempted to kill him on the basis of hearsay information.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR WILLS: Just bear with me Mr Chairperson. Turning to counts 4 and 5, Mbongwa and Buthelezi’s murders, or sorry, assaults, you were convicted of assault in respect of those two cases. You said you received instructions from Mr Awette. What did he actually tell you? What was his instruction to you in respect of those persons?

MR MWELI: Baba and them they used to attack the houses which were closer to the IFP area. Even when these women from IFP houses were going to shops they will come back running saying that Baba and them were chasing them. And then the instruction was that we were supposed to remove them and they were the ones who made the Section One to be ANC stronghold.

MR WILLS: I know that you were questioned about this by the Chairperson, but I didn’t quite understand your evidence. Are you saying that Mr Awette specifically mentioned these two people and told you that you must go and ...(end of tape)...

MR MWELI: Like I’ve said before, he wouldn’t mention names, saying go kill so and so, but he would say those boys are troublesome you must remove them or eliminate them, and then we as boys as we’re walking around if we meet them then we will kill them, and sometimes they will do the same to us and we will run away. If we’ve seen them before they see us, we will shoot them. Because it was well known that if you’re from Section One you wouldn’t come to the shops near Section Two. These were no-go areas if you belonged to another organisation, you know you were limited as to where to walk around the streets.

MR WILLS: So what you’re saying in fact is that you had a general instruction, you took this specific, you took your own initiative to attack these two individuals? Those particular individuals?

MR MWELI: This wasn’t my instruction. I was furthering the instruction which I’ve received. I was doing what was being done by others.

MR WILLS: You didn’t need an instruction, is that what you’re saying? That just because there was this war going on you perpetuated this war just because certain people from the ANC came into your area and attacked, you went and retaliated, is that what you’re saying?

MR MWELI: No, I’m not saying so. There were people who were fighting with them. If I remember very well I don’t remember an IFP member who was being arrested for killing a woman. We were fighting together and sometimes we would be unfortunate in that people would be injured in a Kombi or be attacked in a Kombi and then women were being injured there.

Even if we will meet in town we will fight, because it was the usual thing that even in town they will shoot you, or we will shoot each other. If you didn’t have a gun you were supposed to hide, even if you were in town.

MR WILLS: You say, referring to count 11, that Mr Gasela gave you instructions to kill Mr Sisebo. Is that right?

ADV DE JAGER: Which count is Sisebo now?

MR WILLS: Count 11.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your answer to that?

MR MWELI: It was Mr Gasela, Beki Ngcobo, Thu Ngcobo as well. It wasn’t just Mr Gasela.

MR WILLS: Let’s just try and find out, who told you what in relation to that instruction?

CHAIRPERSON: Were they together when you received these instructions, or did they talk to you separately?

MR MWELI: They were together.

MR WILLS: And who gave the instruction? Was it all three of them? Did they all give you the instruction, or was it just one those three persons?

MR MWELI: All of them, as I’ve mentioned.

MR WILLS: So when you wrote your letter to the Amnesty Committee why didn’t you mention this person Thu or Mr Beki Ngcobo? And I refer again to page 27 of the record, paragraph 4, where you list the person who gave you instructions?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, page?

MR WILLS: Twenty seven.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question?

MR WILLS: My question is why he doesn’t list these people, Beki Ngcobo and this person Thu in respect of giving instructions?

MR MWELI: I think this was a mistake that I didn’t include their names, but they were there and they were the people who said I should do that.

MR WILLS: If they had not given you this instruction, would you have performed this atrocity?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t know to answer that question. It also depends on that person, how the person was, and how he was conducting himself. Because sometimes they will give you instruction of someone that you know he’s been involved in attacks of the IFP.

MR WILLS: So are you saying that if you knew this person had been involved in attacks of the IFP you wouldn’t have needed an instruction to kill him?

MR MWELI: I can put that way too.

MR WILLS: So were there any of these incidents in respect of which you applied for amnesty where you did, in fact, kill without instruction? You say you knew some of these people to be ANC fighters, or UDF fighters.

MR MWELI: As I’ve already said, that sometimes you will take measures as to whether the person was active or involved in attacking IFP, and people like that we will discuss about them, and sometimes if you meet that person and you’re armed, then you will kill that person, because sometimes I wouldn’t carry the gun with me all the time. Jerome would take the gun and it will depend where am I meeting the person.

Sometimes when we meet our enemies and I don’t have a gun, then I will hide, and if they’ve noticed that I was there I will hear gunfire and will try to escape.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) the answer is that you didn’t always require instructions to kill individuals. If you came across people who you knew to be involved in ANC UDF activities, and you had a gun, you would kill them. That’s correct, isn’t it?

MR MWELI: Yes I can put it that way too.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s progress.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I don’t have a lot more to questions, and I’ve got a couple of questions in relation to the other incidents. I would like, as I’ve indicated to you in chambers, to just speak to my clients. I think that now it’s one o’clock it would be a convenient time for me at this stage, and I’m sure that I’ll be ready to proceed and be able to promptly finish very soon after two o’clock if I can take ...(intervention)

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we’ll postpone further questioning by you and we can deal with the others.

Ms Williams, you may have questions to put to the applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WILLIAMS: Yes I do, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Mweli you said in your testimony that you did not enjoy killing, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes. As I’ve already mentioned that it wasn’t my aim sometimes to do so, but the situation was forcing me, or the situation was pushing me from behind to do so.

MS WILLIAMS: May I refer the Committee to page 106 of the bundle, where Justice Wilson at page 106, line 22, if the Committee will bear with me

"I am pleased to say that in the years I have practised at the Bar or been on the bench I have never before had to deal with someone who I am so convinced is inherently evil. In the light of the conclusions I have arrived at as to his personality, that is, that he killed for the sake of killing, and enjoyed doing it, I do not believe that there is any reasonable prospect of his being reformed. When that prospect of reformation is weighed against his potential danger to members of the public if he is once again let loose on them it is true it is necessary to pass heavy sentences to deter others from committing the same offence. But in the present case, even that in my view is overshadowed by the necessity to protect the public from what I consider to be an extremely dangerous person, and a person who is unlikely to change," ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: That’s the judge’s conclusion. So what’s your question?

MS WILLIAMS: I’d like to put it to Mr Mweli if he would like to comment on the conclusions reached by justice. If the Committee will bear with me, I’d just like to finish this sentence, he does go on to say ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: We have a copy of this page. ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MS WILLIAMS: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

"... one who kills for the love of killing, who kills in cold blood anybody he comes across."

Mr Mweli please could you comment on the comments made by Justice Wilson in passing judgment in your matter.

MR MWELI: What I can say is that when the judge is passing a sentence he is saying what he or she is supposed to say. This was his view, or his perspective, but I personally, I never enjoyed killing. This happened because some people used me, and at the time my mind, I was still a child therefore I wasn’t matured mentally. I am not a killer, even though I’ve killed.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) some people used me. Who were the people that used you?

MR MWELI: The people I’ve already mentioned their names.

CHAIRPERSON: The people who you say gave you instructions?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MS WILLIAMS: Mr Mweli you also said in your testimony that there was no-one forcing you to do the killing, but rather circumstances, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Yes, I’ve said so. I said the situation and the circumstances. I even put this before when I was giving evidence, I put this in English. I said even if the instruction says you must climb up to the roof of the house you will do so, it was compulsory for us to listen to the leaders.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what is an order that is given by somebody?

MR MWELI: I wouldn’t say I know it exactly, but I do have an idea.

CHAIRPERSON: An order is something which, if you don’t carry out, you will be punished in some way for it. Do you agree with that?

MR MWELI: Yes, I do, you explaining it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Now throughout your evidence, not once did you say that you were ordered to kill. Do you understand? All that you said was you received instructions, which you carried out. That’s correct isn’t it?

MR MWELI: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You carried out these instructions because you agreed with them.

MR MWELI: Yes, I can say so.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were not forced by circumstances, you willingly did what you did?

MR MWELI: No, I was forced by circumstances and the situation in that area and also I had to protect myself. The situation was forcing me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright. Do carry on.

MS WILLIAMS: Mr Mweli, in the judgment the Honourable Justice Wilson refers to after a weighing up of all the evidence the testimony of the witnesses led by the State and the witnesses led in your defence, and yourself who took the stand in your defence, he in conclusion states at 106 at line 16

"... after weighing up of all the evidence, there can be no suggestion there of any political motive, of any political hatred. This was killing for the sake of killing."

Could you please comment on that?

MR MWELI: What I can say is that in Court I didn’t give evidence because of my age, or I couldn’t give evidence because of my age, and also I was scared to implicate the people who instructed me to do so, but if only I was talking like I’m talking today, I would have, he would have seen that this was political.

CHAIRPERSON: What did your age have to do with this, you could not give evidence because of your age? What had age to do with it please tell me?

MR MWELI: I was under seventeen, therefore the judge said I couldn’t speak for myself at that time when I was sentenced.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I’m not talking about when you were sentenced. I’m talking about when you gave, in the trial, when you did not give evidence. You say you did not give evidence because of your age. Did the judge tell you that you were too young to give evidence?

MR MWELI: No, when I gave evidence I was already told that I shouldn’t mention other people’s name, because they promised me that they were going to fight for this case until I was released.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) that one of the reasons why you did not give evidence was because of your age. My question is, what did your age have to do with it?

MR MWELI: I think I didn’t understand the question. I’m sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: You said the judge at one stage said you’re under seventeen and you can’t speak for yourself.

ADV SIGODI: With respect, he did not say that. He did not say that the judge said that.

MR MWELI: My lawyer, my attorney, said I was under seventeen, not the judge.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve got down there that the judge said so. Now you say you made a mistake, it was your attorney who said that.

ADV DE JAGER: It may be that it has been wrongly translated because she’s got a different note.

MR MWELI: Yes, it was my attorney, not the judge. I didn’t even go to the witness box.

CHAIRPERSON: We’re going to take an adjournment at this stage, and we’ll resume at two o’clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTON

PUMANI DEREK MWELI: (s.u.o.)

MS WILLIAMS: ...(indistinct) and I’d like to place on record, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MS WILLIAMS: Yes Mr Chairperson. Mr Mweli, I’m here today on behalf of the implicated persons, those being members of the IFP which you have referred to in your letter to Mr Tutu and in the evidence which you gave before the Committee today and yesterday.

ADV DE JAGER: Are those the persons mentioned on page 27?

MS WILLIAMS: That is correct. I have in fact received notification from the TRC, and appear on behalf of the following persons: Mr David Ntombelo, Mr Abdul Awette, Mr Jerome Mncwabe, Mr VP Ndlovu, Mr Gasela, Mr Ndlandla Luthuli, Mr Toto Zulu and Mr Tulani Mncwabe.

ADV DE JAGER: The two last names again please.

MS WILLIAMS: Mr Toto Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MS WILLIAMS: T O T O, and Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MS WILLIAMS: Z U. And the last applicant is Tulani Mncwabe. M N C W A B E.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what about them?

MS WILLIAMS: Mr Mweli I’m to put to you that those people who you have implicated as being the persons who instructed you to commit these various offences have instructed me that they deny any and all involvement in the crimes which you have perpetrated, and furthermore deny that they ever gave you any instructions in respect of the crimes which you committed. How do you respond to that?

MR MWELI: This is surprising to realise that they deny all of that, but at the same time I’m not surprised because when things are bad you find that everybody wants to detach themselves and to stand themselves from all the evil or the bad actions. I don’t think I will pick on them and implicate them, they know that very well, they know that in their hearts pretty well. But the facts is clear and obvious here, that they’re implicated and there may be legal steps taken towards them so they want to distance themselves from all this.

MS WILLIAMS: That is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS

Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson I must unfortunately say that I was able to speak to about fifty percent of the people over lunch. Unfortunately not everyone knew that I wanted to speak to them, but I can continue with, just on one issue, on the issue of what the opposition is, I would after I’m finished my questioning like to have an opportunity to get that opinion from the clients before I finish, but I can finish my cross-examination now.

CHAIRPERSON: How long will it take you to get that instruction?

MR WILLS: Well I should imagine fifteen minutes at the most, Mr Chairperson. And by that I mean coming in and out included. But I can continue in the main with the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Do as much as you can.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I’m sorry, I’m just acting for so many people.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR WILLS: Thank you.

Mr Mweli you indicated in relation to the evidence in count 1 that you were paid five hundred rand, I think you said per month. Am I correct in that understanding? You also say it in your second application form.

MR MWELI: I did not say that with regard to count 1 I was paid some, an amount of money. What I said was I was not paid. That was the money given to me because at times I render services of escorting them and going with them all the places they go to. I will say, out of all the leaders who were there, like Mr Awette, Mncwabe, and Thu, all the time wanted my services, wanted my company, so that the money was given to me, not that it was paid, or it was payment for some job or work I had conducted or I had done.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words it was not a salary you were receiving, is that what you are saying?

MR MWELI: No, it was not, because this was not happening all the time.

MR WILLS: Are you saying that you got the five hundred rand a month in respect of services you rend..., or five hundred rand occasionally, in respect of services you rendered in relation to accompanying these people, Mr Awette and Mr Mncwabe, and that the five hundred rand had nothing to do with the killings that you conducted?

MR MWELI: It had nothing to do with all the atrocities. It was also not, this was not done all the time, it was only occasionally that I will be given some amount of money. They will give me that money for me to take care of other expenses or of my problems, not necessarily saying they are paying me some salary or some wages of some kind, no.

MR WILLS: You linked this five hundred rand in your amnesty application at page 23 directly to the acts in respect of which you are applying for amnesty. You are asked on that question,

"...did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise?"

And you say,

"... Yes, sometimes I was given five hundred rand a month."

So why did you link this to the atrocities in your application, and now you’re not, you’re distancing yourself?

MR MWELI: In an attempt to answer you I’m saying in prison, these papers I was sent in prison, you will find the people in my area will donate some money and will bring this to me in prison. I have papers to support what I’m saying as I’m sure he knew this ... in relation to what I’m explaining. In prison as an inmate this happened.

MR WILLS: ...(indistinct) Mr Mweli, basically what I’m trying to establish, it seems from me reading your application, that you got paid five hundred rand occasionally for the work that you did in respect of the killing of ANC persons. Is that true or not?

MR MWELI: I deny that I was paid for killing ANC people, but what I’m saying is that the money ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILLS: Thank you. Turning to count 12, where you’ve admitted before the Committee, that you’ve killed the wrong person, that is involving the death of Mr Shezi, you said that the purpose in killing Mr Shezi was that because you had been given orders to kill the person in count 15. Surely, to take such a drastic step as to take somebody’s life you would make sure that you were killing the right person?

MR MWELI: As I said earlier on, that killing the person in count 12 was a mistake. It was at night. I did not see properly as to I’m killing the right person or not. I went back to Mr Ngcobo to tell him, or give him the report. The following day I discovered that it’s the wrong person I killed. So that was a sheer mistake.

MR WILLS: ...(indistinct) with respect, Mr Mwele. My question is, why didn’t you check and make sure that this person was in fact the target?

MR MWELI: It was time. Time was as the thing happened it happened so abrupt so immediately so urgent that I never took time to think or to realise the things I was doing these things on the spur of the moment. So that everything that happened happened so fast as lightning.

MR WILLS: No, Mr Mweli, I can’t believe that.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, that’s the explanation he has given. Done on the spur of the moment, he didn’t have time to think, done abruptly, like lightning. You can address us on that point and whatever it means, but I don’t think your cross-examination can take that much further.

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson. When you were detained after the charges were withdrawn, do you recall that? You were visited by the security police, is that right?

MR MWELI: Yes, although I don’t remember quite well, but please elaborate.

MR WILLS: I’m wanting to know what the security police said to you when they interviewed you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this during his detention under the state of emergency?

MR WILLS: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR MWELI: There were so many police who came to me, I don’t know as to which one you are referring to.

MR WILLS: I’m talking about the police that visited you when you were detained. Can you remember what any of them said to you?

MR MWELI: Lieutenant Marion would come, as well as Sgt. Lugino who were under the Riot Investigation Unit working under that unit, and Capt. ...(unintelligible name) came as well if I’m not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the counsel is trying to, we understand that you may have been visited by many of them I think he wants to know from you what did they come to see you about? Is that it?

MR MWELI: They will come to get statements from me, and admit the cases I had. No-one came on a friendly basis to visit me as such, except there were always in a mission.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) they want you to make a statement in connection with the matters for which you had been originally arrested, is that it?

MR MWELI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This was whilst you were detained under the state of emergency?

MR MWELI: Yes.

MR WILLS: And you say that Lieutenant Marion visited you at that time as well, when you were actually in detention under the state of emergency?

MR MWELI: Yes, he used to come to take statements.

MR WILLS: Just finally, Mr Mweli, I just want you to comment on what I consider to be a disturbing part of the evidence, and I’m referring to page 86 of the record. This involves your, the atrocities you were involved in. The last one is counts 16 to 19, when you went on a spree where you killed four people, and one of the witnesses at the trial gave evidence to the effect, where she says and I quote, or the judge says in reporting her evidence, that she saw you twiddling a handgun on your index fingers with your friend, and you were laughing when you walked past her house.

MR MWELI: Will you please repeat the last part of your question. Please repeat the last part Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: I’m asking you to comment on what this witness says about you, if you say you were just doing a job. I’m concerned about the fact that this witness indicates that after you’ve been on this killing spree you walked past like a hero, twiddling a gun round your hand, and you laughed as if the people you kill mean nothing to you. I want you to comment on that.

MR MWELI: That never happened, and I don’t at all think that I would be able to that, what you said about the firearm, the way you said I was playing around it on my finger, with my finger. I don’t think that’s true. There is no way, especially after you’ve cocked it, because it will shoot automatically. I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration here, and there’s nothing like that.

MR WILLS: I’m worried about the laughing Mr Mweli. That’s what I’m worried about. Can you comment on that?

MR MWELI: Out of all these incidents there’s not even one single one where I laughed. The manner in which it has been described, that never happened. Even to date I feel very bad about those things I did, and they are torturing me, those events, and I know how much pain the families are bearing in relation to this, and I would not say I did. I’ve never done that, laughing, that is.

MR WILLS: You’ve got nobody to corroborate the fact that you were given orders from anybody.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn’t said that he was given orders ...(indistinct).

MR WILLS: Sorry Mr Chairperson. I will rephrase that. You’ve got no corroboration about the fact that you were given instructions. Every time I put to you something that was recorded in the record and was made a finding by a judge you say that was untrue. I put it to you that you’re not being completely open in your application before the Committee over the last two days.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just get this clear. I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you now saying that he’s not making a full disclosure, and that was preceded by a question, that you were wording.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson I was preceding it, I was substantiating from a different point of view. If I can just try and rephrase. There’s nobody, as I understand it, that is coming before us to corroborate your evidence, is that correct?

MR MWELI: Right now there’s no-one but I asked Mr Zondi who is an IFP member for some reason he cannot show up, he’s busy at work. Although it may so happened that he bears no much information inasfar as the instructions and the orders that were given to me is concerned, but he will speak in his capacity as an IFP member corroborating what I’ve said and giving witness, giving evidence, beg your pardon.

MR WILLS: When I put to you certain findings made in the Court and certain difference between your evidence and my instructions, you simply avoid those issues by saying that what the other people say is not true. I’m putting to you that what you have told us about some of these incidents is not entirely true.

MR MWELI: I did not quite follow you.

MR WILLS: Mr Mweli, I’m saying to you that you have not told the whole truth before this Committee. You’ve only said the things that you think will be to your advantage. You haven’t told the full story about the numerous atrocities that you have committed, and I want you to comment on that.

MR MWELI: All that I did, I have tried my best to put in front of this Commission. I know that there are people who are out there and this is not going down well with them, the fact that I’m divulging so much to this Commission, especially that we’d agreed with them that these are confidential matters and today I’m opening the Commission to that effect, and I know very well that such people will be disturbed, and to the parents that are here, and those that suffered during the time, I would like to apologise and ask for forgiveness from them.

There is nothing else I’m keeping away, nothing I’m hiding. I have told this Commission everything that I possibly remember, especially that these things happened long time ago when I was still a kid then, I have tried my best to divulge every necessary information and important things.

MR WILLS: Just in response Mr Mweli, are you telling the Committee here - and to be fair with you the community believe that you were involved in a number of the acts in respect of which you were acquitted, are you saying that except for the one incident, and I think that was count 16, in all the other ones that you were acquitted, you had nothing to do with those incidents?

MR SAMUEL: He didn’t say that, Honourable Chairperson.

MR WILLS: I’m asking him?

MR SAMUEL: True Honourable Chairperson. May the question be phrased in such a way that he can comment on which counts he’s actually involved in, and which he is not?

ADV DE JAGER: I think ...(indistinct) that in all fairness that we ask him to concentrate on those where he’s applying, so if you can just keep that in mind perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: We know that there are parents here in connection with matters in respect of which amnesty is not sought. We are concerned with whether he has made a full disclosure in respect of the offences for which he seeks amnesty. I think you appreciate that, don’t you?

MR WILLS: Yes Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) Ms Patel, do you have any questions to put.

MS PATEL: No, I don’t have any questions, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Good, before I call upon you to re-examine, if there’s any re-examination, Mr Wills requires a little time to consult with some of his clients. You still require that time, don’t you?

MR WILLS: Yes Mr Chairperson, thank you, very briefly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we’ll take a very short adjournment. You will call us immediately you are ready.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PUMANI DEREK MWELI: (s.u.o.)

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you very much for the indulgence Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee. I have no further questions for this witness, and neither do I intend leading any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR SAMUEL: No, Honourable Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel, you’re not calling any other witnesses are you?

MR SAMUEL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to address us ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: I can address you.

CHAIRPERSON: You can? Will you do so please.

MR SAMUEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. The applicant was a 14 year old, or at the most a sixteen year old, when his house was burned down, the house in which he lived with his sister, by people suspected to belong to the UDF. And he had to move from a mixed, area of mixed political affiliation to an area which was predominantly Inkatha based. He was recruited into the Inkatha Youth Brigade, and because he is a bright young person he held office as the vice-chairperson, or the deputy chairperson.

He was subsequently recruited by some senior IFP officials into the more militant part of the organisation. He was trained, he was given training in the use of firearms, and he was in fact given a weapon at such a tender age. He was given instructions to kill those who were attacking the IFP members as well as a general instruction to kill people who supported the UDF.

On certain occasions he was given specific instructions to eliminate ANC, UDF people, and in respect of the counts 16 to 19 he was given a general instruction to kill everything or everyone in that area. He was not only targeted because of his unfortunate loss of his home in the area that he lived, and because he was bright, but he was also targeted psychologically by the IFP. They utilised the use of muti, which must have had an impact on him even though he was a bright person but he was very young and could have been easily influenced by the use of muti.

He indicated that the factors that drove him to do what he did, the killing, was that he was given an instruction and not an order, and he has distinguished between this fairly clearly, it was an instruction, but also the circumstances made him follow the instruction. It was the circumstances prevailing in that area. It was an area of violent IFP UDF conflict. It was an area where people were dying on a daily basis, there were loss of life on both sides. It was a situation he described that whenever UDF people met ANC people, whoever drew out the gun first would fire on, UDP people I mean IFP people, whoever drew out their guns first would fire on the opposition. If you had no guns you ran away, if you had guns you fired. So it was effectively a war zone.

The IFP’s role in this whole killing spree of the applicant can be viewed by their conduct prior to the arrest. He was to a large extent protected by senior IFP people, Mr Awette, Mr Gasela and in the end Mr David Ntombela, and it’s quite clear that the judge, in fact, commented on the manner in which his arrest was effected.

I believe that Justice Wilson in 1989 when he sentenced the accused would not have had the benefit that he has had now, of sitting and listening to the kind of atrocities that he may have heard at the Truth Commission. I am fairly sure that if he were to give, pass judgment on this case today with the knowledge that he has today, he would not attribute it to total criminal activity on the part of the applicant. Because this, as the applicant himself says, he killed no women, the targets were UDF males or ANC males. It was not a situation where he went into an area and indiscriminately killed absolutely everyone. He did indiscriminately kill, but he indiscriminately killed male people, and these male people he felt strongly belonged to the ANC or UDF. The state even believed that this was a political crime, because they held him in terms of the state of emergency, while they conducted their investigations.

So, at an early stage it was recognised by the state organs, that is the police, that in fact this was an offence of a political nature. One may argue at length on the proportionality element in this matter. Whether the ends that was trying to achieve was justified by the means that he used. But the applicant was living in a state of war. He had been fired upon many times, his house was burned.

He has also stated that he was fighting for an IFP state, a IFP state controlled by the IFP, the IFP controlling KwaZulu Natal, and to that extent he carried out instructions to get rid of areas of UDF and ANC people. To me there appears to be no difference between the applicant who goes into this area and shoots a thirteen year old and an 11 year boy, and two other people in a UDF stronghold, the say to someone who our state has granted indemnity to and that being perhaps Barend Strydom who walks down Pretoria streets and fires indiscriminately at black people or Derick Robert MacBride who takes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hold on. Neither of these people have been granted amnesty.

MR SAMUEL: They were pardoned by the State.

CHAIRPERSON: They were granted indemnity you say. I’m told that MacBride's application for amnesty is pending.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. The government, the democratic coalition of the government at that stage granted both MacBride ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We can’t use that as any ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson I take the point, and I’ll move on. I submit that when you put arms in a youngster’s hand you cannot ask him to be like an adult. It is for that reason that firearms are not given to children. There’s an age requirement for firearms. The IFP effectively, in his youth, turned him into a killer.

CHAIRPERSON: If his physical age was that of a young boy, but he was intellectually developed beyond his age, would that make any difference?

MR SAMUEL: Honourable Chairperson, he may have been a bright boy, but he was still a bright boy, if the Chairperson gets my meaning. One may be intelligent, but the level of maturity that comes with age cannot be exchanged for intelligence and as an intelligent child one still has a propensity to act like a child, or the disposition to act like a child and not an adult. He was not precocious beyond his years.

I didn’t hear Justice, or read that Justice Wilson described him as a precocious person but as a bright person. In the circumstances, Honourable Chairperson and members, I’m saying that he, to an extent, even though he committed the most violent and most vicious acts against the people seated here and their families, to an extent he was a victim because he was manipulated and used by members of an organisation for their own ends. They chose the youngsters.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was willing.

MR SAMUEL: He was willing because he was in their hands. His house was burned down, he moved into a new area.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I understand all that. He could have withdrawn from whatever he was asked to do if he didn’t wish to do it. ...(indistinct) that he was willing, or that it suited him to do it, or not?

MR SAMUEL: Initially when he was given the firearm, if I remember him, asking carefully on what was said to him, he was told that he was being taught to use the firearm to defend himself. At that stage he could have withdrawn, but he was told that he was defending himself. He’d just been through an experience where his house was burned. He was an easy target. He had a gripe. He had an axe to grind against the UDF people. On that basis he was recruited. But slowly the spiral of violence overwhelmed him and slowly he himself became a victim of his own acts.

Honourable Chairperson, I submit with respect, that he is somebody who has been used by the political situation and the political organisations in this country, and he should be given amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills.

MR WILLS ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Yes thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, my instructions are to oppose amnesty on all counts on the basis of the applicant has not given full disclosure and also on the basis that certain of the incidents

in respect of which he applied cannot be justified in that he didn’t have a political motive. I’ll deal with the issue of political motive firstly, Mr Chairperson.

I specifically refer here to count 12, where an individual was mistaken killed because he was believed to be somebody else. Now clearly, under no circumstances, can one justify that on the basis of any political motivation, neither did the applicant give evidence as to any political motivation for that killing. In respect of counts 13 and 14, I submit that there the applicant’s attempts to justify this on the basis of political motivation in the sense that his leader Awette told him to go and kill the boys an hour before this occurred, cannot ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn’t told to kill the boys. Assault.

MR WILLS: Yes, assault, thank you Mr Chairperson, an hour before, he simply comes back to the area and finds two persons hanging around an approximate place where an earlier incident takes place.

There’s no direct evidence of orders to take the lives of these two individuals, he just takes it upon himself to kill those individuals, which he does. And he doesn’t offer any, or his evidence doesn’t amount to what, with respect, could be regarded as a political motivation for those killings.

Mr Chairperson also, with respect, the application is opposed on the grounds of proportionality and particularly in relation to the admitted murder of the thirteen year old boy Sithebe in count 16 for which he was acquitted, and in respect of the murder of the eleven year old boy Majosi in count 18, and in respect of the deceased, the retarded individual in count 16, Mdluli. Whilst it is conceded that his evidence was to the effect that he must just go kill anybody in that area, and whilst my colleague seeks to ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mdluli, wasn’t that number 17?

MR WILLS: Sorry, did I say 16, I’m sorry, count 17. My colleague seeks to make some headway in regard to the fact that the applicant was discriminate, I submit that this amounted to nothing more than indiscriminate and horrific atrocities, and clearly disproportionate in relation to the objectives which could possibly be sought.

Going to the issue of the non-full disclosure, we have problems with the application in that my instructions are that the applicant hasn’t fully disclosed all the incidents which he was involved in. I realise that he’s not obliged to in this application, he’s only making application for those that he is convicted of, but even in the one, in count 1 where he was convicted, the evidence both according to my instructions which were put to the accused, which were corroborated to a large extent by the findings of the judge and the witnesses who were quoted in the judge’s findings, it is submitted that the applicant hasn’t been entirely candid with the Committee in respect of that incident.

Mr Chairperson, in the applicant’s favour my instructions are that we concede that he was an IFP operative and that in all probability he did receive instructions from higher authorities, but in short, he was very loose about the way he carried out those instructions. He overstepped the mark, and I think my colleague is correct when he said the circumstances affect him to do certain things. But I submit that that isn’t justification in terms of the Act for getting amnesty. That’s another issue entirely.

So, in short, Mr Chairperson, we are not convinced that the applicant has fully disclosed in all of the incidents. I wasn’t in a position to put specific aspects to the applicant in respect of a number of the incidents because the persons were deceased and none of my clients witnessed anything, but particularly in respect of count number 1 we can say that definitely that was the case, and because of the fact that he hasn’t been candid in count number 1 we, my instructions are that the probabilities are that he hasn’t been entirely candid with the others. But clearly in respect of counts 12, 13 and 14 there was no political motivation, and clearly in respect of counts 17 and 18, the proportionality, the acts were disproportionate in respect of the political objective sought to be achieved. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Williams I understand, I realise, that you’ve been here only on one brief aspect of the matter, but is there anything you wish to say.

MS WILLIAMS: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel?

MR SAMUEL IN REPLY: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, very briefly in response, as regards the non-full disclosure, if one looks at count 16 in which the applicant has admitted killing someone for whom he was found not guilty, in respect of whom he was found not guilty, I submit that is indicative of his truthfulness. As regards count 1, the applicant is saying that these were UDF operatives who were armed with spears, who came to him, and they were people who attacked IFP people in the area. It is unlikely that they are going to instruct my learned colleague that in fact they were UDF operatives, that they in fact had the spears in their hands and in fact were about to attack the applicant.

So one can understand that his instructions may be somewhat different to what the applicant is saying, because these people have their own necks to protect, with respect, Honourable Chairperson. But if one looks at his honesty in respect of count 16, where there was no onus on him to admit that, he did. In fact, why should he, on counts 16, 17, 18 and 19 say I went and shot indiscriminately at people living in a UDF stronghold and in count one not be willing to say that if, you know that there was an altercation if that occurred, I leave that for the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: In fact in his evidence in chief in count 1 he mentioned that they asked him about him harassing his girlfriend. So he mentioned it in chief.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you Honourable Member.

MR SAMUEL: As regards my learned colleague’s point on the circumstances, it was not the circumstances which affected him and therefore made him revengeful. It was the circumstances which he lived under that effectively he was living in a war zone, where whenever UDF people confronted him he would have to shoot first, if not he would be shot.

Those were the circumstances that turned him into the kind of person that he turned out to be. He had to be on his defensive, he had to carry arms, and he had to attack first before he was attacked.

Very briefly as regards the political nature of count 12, it’s clear that he went with a political motive to kill, and he may have got the wrong person. This person may be an innocent victim of a politically motivated act. And so too one can argue on counts 17 and 18, that these may be innocent people of a politically motivated act. The act was intended to be political, to drive people out of that area because they were suspected of being UDF people. The intentions in carrying out the act was political. The victims may have been innocent.

In count 13 and 14 he did indicate that when Mr Awette said assault, and bearing in mind Mr Awette is the one who gave him the gun, obviously assault meant more to him than just punching somebody or slapping somebody around.

But what is important is that he didn’t go to another area and carry out this attack. He went to the same area where the shot was fired and where he was insulted. The same area where he suspected animosity from UDF people emanating. If he had gone to another area then one would say that he is not carrying out the instructions of Mr Awette. That is all, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. This has been a long session, and it will take some time before we will meet as a panel again.

We hope in the meanwhile to be able to consider this application and in due course, when we arrive at our decision, all interested parties, including you Ms Williams, will be duly informed.

The Committee has finished it’s work for this week and we have now come to the end of the inquiry of the Amnesty Committee in Pietermaritzburg for the time being. Thank you very much.

MS PATEL: Would everybody please rise.

HEARING ADJOURNS