CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. It's Tuesday the 28th March 2000. We're hearing the amnesty applications in Pinetown. The Panel consists of myself, Chris de Jager, Advocate Bosman SC and Advocate Sigodi. The matters due to be heard is the application of Mr Msibi, application number 5617/97 and Tsuku Tshika, 5962/97. Could the legal representatives please put themselves on record?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I'm Lula Mtanga, the Evidence Leader for the Truth Commission.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, my name is Dehal, Roshan Dehal from the firm Dehal Incorporated, I represent both the applicants in the matter. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We've adjourned yesterday afternoon until 9 o'clock this morning. Could we have an explanation why we're starting so late?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I think it's prudent for me to deal with that aspect. I begin by saying I repeat my apology to you Mr Chairperson and the Panel for being late this morning. I was about 15 minutes late. Unfortunately, apart from that 15 minutes to quarter past nine there was a host of consultations by the Evidence Leader with the crowd at the back and especially with the victims that are here and ongoing consultations between herself, myself with Deborah Quinn on aspects arising on the record, the need to divide them and otherwise and with yourselves. So there were some necessary consultations. We've met with the people and through the Evidence Leader, she's apologised on our behalf. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you perhaps appearing in any of the matters tomorrow?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I'm not aware of any matters tomorrow except for these two applicants. If it enrols till tomorrow then those would be the only. None, no other matters.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, there's a number of incidents referred to in the applications. Could you kindly tell us exactly for what you are applying?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, that is unfortunately a question that leads me to some difficulty. Mr Chairperson, the position is as follows. Insofar as the second applicant is concerned, Mr Tshika ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's start with him and tell us, he is applying for what?
MR DEHAL: He applies for amnesty for all the incidents in the Newcastle area, there being four such incidents which four incidents are detailed as a summary on the cover page of the bundle that we have namely
1. An attack on the oSizweni Police Station on the 10th October 1986;
2. An explosion at Newcastle Court on the 11th November 1986;
3. An explosion at Glencoe railway station in Dundee
(iv) an explosion at Game Centre in Newcastle around 1986.
In addition to those four, Mr Chairperson, he also applies for amnesty for incidents that took place in Durban and there are three such incidents. Firstly, the attack at the Mobeni Post Office in 1985, secondly ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just go slow please, we haven't got that one?
MR DEHAL: I'm sorry, the attack at the Mobeni Post Office in 1985. Secondly the attack on Game in Pine Street in Durban in 1985 as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly refer us in his application where he refers to this?
MR DEHAL: Sorry, before I deal with that Mr Chairperson, could I just tell you there's an additional count in the Durban area as well and that is the attack on a mini bus in Pine Street in 1985
Mr Chairperson, dealing with your question, if I take you to bundle, page 13, this is the written application of the second applicant, Mr Tshika and if you look at paragraph 9(a)(iii), he there talks of Durban and in Newcastle.
CHAIRPERSON: And in the indictment referred to on page 73 to 91?
MR DEHAL: Could I just look at that, Mr Chairperson? Sorry, bear with me, Mr Chairperson, the applicant, my assistant, just helping me go through the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should refer from page 79 where details are given? Count one is the general offence of terrorism, count two relates to separate alternative, that's the possession of weapons.
MR DEHAL: And Mr Chairperson, if you look at page 82, you'll find that it deals in the general preamble after the words "an whereas" with the Durban incidents themselves. It talks about during the period January 1985 to November 1986 and to Durban and the district of Durban, Umgababa and the district of Umbumbulu, Newcastle, oSizweni and Madedene in the district of Newcastle, Glencoe in the district of Glencoe and so it goes on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DEHAL: And of course Mr Chairperson, more pointedly if you look at page 94, paragraph 8 right on the top deals with OK Bazaars, West Street and Game Discount World, West Street, Durban.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, if perhaps you could try and ...(intervention)
MR DEHAL: And paragraph 11, the Post Office in Durban.
CHAIRPERSON: Connect the incidents to counts number so and so then it would be easy for us to follow it.
MR DEHAL: Yes, that would be easy, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But it seems as though all the counts relates to possession of firearms, ...(intervention)
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, if I may come in?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
CHAIRPERSON: My understanding of the indictment is that it was - the incidents that are being referred to now on the indictment, they were generally included on page 84. There's no specific reference to each incident as a separate count.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS MTANGA: It's only in the summary that they deal with them separately.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, the other submission that would be important to make at this stage is that the applicants have made the decision or have taken the decision if you are agreeable that the Durban matter should not proceed today. Apparently because of a host of other problems, not least the following. One, Ms Deborah Quinn of the TRC has advised that the commander of the second applicant whom we're dealing with has in fact applied for amnesty and it would be prudent to have him brought to these hearings perhaps on notice or invited in some way so that he could form a part of these hearings to corroborate our version.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so has his application already been heard or dealt with?
MR DEHAL: Not yet, no Chairperson.
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, if I may come in? The Durban incidents are not subject matter of these hearings at all so he was never notified because we never intended to hear those matters today.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, could you perhaps advise us which incidents you think we could hear today?
MS MTANGA: On the covering page of the bundle the incidents that can be heard today it's the first incident, the attack at oSizweni Police Station on the 10th October 1986. The second one that was set down for today, it's the Newcastle matter in which we are encountering problems regarding the notification of victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MS MTANGA: And the third incident, it's the Glencoe railway station at Dundee and the fourth incidents, it's the Game Centre explosion which also took place on the 10th October - sorry, the 11th November 1986, it's the same incident as the Newcastle Magistrate Court one.
CHAIRPERSON: So that one too we can't hear today, number four?
MS MTANGA: Yes, we can't hear number two and number four.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so do you intend to ask us to proceed with the incidents two and ...(intervention)
MS MTANGA: One and three.
CHAIRPERSON: One and three?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that's the only incidents we're proceeding with today? What is your position about those two incidents and the other would be postponed then for a hearing at a later date?
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, unfortunately I do have some problems with that suggestion. I have conferred with the applicants on that and that is what took the time this morning or one of the items that took this time this morning. The problems I have are the following. Briefly, firstly the second applicant is concerned that whereas his application does in truth and in fact deal with the Newcastle incidents, the Northern Natal incidents and the Durban incidents, he at all times understood that his application would as a whole deal with those counts that he seeks amnesty for. Never was he told by the TRC on notice or otherwise that the Durban incidents would be separated. When he consulted with lawyers at my office in the formulation of his statement he considered it perhaps an error on the part of those formulating the bundle not to have referred in the summary on the first page to the Durban incident and accordingly in his exhaustive statement he deals with the Durban incidents at length exhaustively and hoped that it would be heard today. But having heard the problems at the administrative level with the Durban matters he has now reconciled with the decision that he will agree to the Durban incidents being heard separately but apart from that, that brings me to the four items on the bundle. The four items on the bundle, Mr Chairperson, namely those at the oSizweni Police Station, the two Newcastle incidents and the Glencoe railway station incident, are incidents that deal with a set of activities under the command of the first applicant, Mr Msibi, in the Northern Natal area.
The problems we have were the proposition made by my learned colleague, the Evidence Leader, in dividing them are multifarious. Some of them are the following. The applicants are of the view that they should not be asked to divide their application and testify piecemeal on different issues particularly since these four issues are broadly speaking one and the same. They fall within the purview of a single command structure, they fall within the purview of an area that is identified as Northern Natal. They deal with logistical and factual issues politically in that area and if they were to deal with them they would go through about two hours of evidence each at the least in regard to the background of the political aspects in the area and they feel that if these matters are divided they would have to again deal with the same facts at a different forum perhaps before a different committee and it would be - their words are, it would compromise their position.
The second problem we have ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could I just put this to you? For instance in the De Kock trials we've got different incidents relating to the same background being heard by even different Panels all over the country at different times so we're hearing incidents because in some incidents a group of people may be involved in other incidents, other people wont be involved. As far as victims are concerned we're bringing victims to venues at great costs. We can't keep them for a week if they're only involved in one incident being heard on one day. That would be too expensive. We would request you -I'm not making an order but we'll request you to kindly see whether we can't deal with the two incidents number one and three at this stage because of the saving of money. We're wasting public money, it's not our money, taxpayers money. If we do nothing today we've got to pay all the staff members here and how would we explain that to the Minister for instance, why couldn't we proceed? Even if evidence has to be repeated, if you hand in the statement, the same statement could be handed in at the next hearing and only confirmed, you need not go through the statement word by word. We could read the statement, if it's confirmed it's confirmed. Your statement of today, you need not go through the evidence for two hours, we know about the background, the political background, the war that was going on so it's no need to deal in detail, you could sort of - certain issues could be raised and brought more to the front but it's no need to repeat word for word. If it's a sworn statement it's evidence before us whether it's oral or evidence. We need not have oral evidence about it all. So I would really ask you and ask the applicants - we don't want to prejudice them, instead we want to finish the work so they could have amnesty. In certain incidents maybe in a months time otherwise they'll be waiting for another six months perhaps before they can be heard.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, I think the points made by you are correct, I appreciate them, I embrace them and endorse them. Could I approach the applicants to confer with them on this?
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: If you would like a short adjournment we could adjourn for it.
MR DEHAL: It would seem necessary. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for five minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Are we in a position to start now?
MR DEHAL: Yes indeed Mr Chairperson. I have a few preliminary comments that I'm instructed to make, if you'll bear with me on those and then perhaps we would be in a position to begin with those two counts.
Mr Chairperson, both the applicants are feeling very uneasy at the moment. I feel just as uneasy because being their attorney they feel that they've been placed in a position where they, to assist the Committee, to assist in alleviating the cost aspect they should proceed. They're hoping that this would not negatively impact on them relative to their present application and any subsequent application they bring. They've reasoned somewhat on the following basis that if they were to deal with these counts exclusive of the others, an argument may well be adduced that they are not testifying with full disclosure on the other counts. The other argument that may be adduced is that if they are questioned by my learned colleague, the Evidence Leader, or any Member of the Panel and I understand there's no victims here in the one case and nobody opposing in the other, then some of those questions may deal with their Durban aspects and their involvement elsewhere which they are now being asked not to deal with.
Insofar as the second applicant is concerned, he more than the first applicant has a very serious problem with it. He says that his general background, his life history, his political scenario, his politicisation stems from Durban, stems from Newcastle and that Durban is an essential ingredient offered. If you were not to talk about Durban then it will not give a full and complete picture. He says, however, if the Committee is happy with that he will proceed but he does so, both in fact will do so, against their better judgement only out of their good will and their hearts to proceed to help today.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think they should leave it to our better judgement and not their better judgement but be that as it may we want them to disclose the relevant facts to the incident they're now applying for and you would be free to object whenever we touch on things outside those incidents because I don't think the facts of other incidents would be relevant to this one. We're quite aware that they're involved in other incidents, I do not think that it's necessary to enter into any details of the other incidents and I can assure you I don't think it would prejudice them and I'm sure my Panel agrees with as we'll guard against any prejudice coming from that sort of source.
MR DEHAL: I'm indebted to you Mr Chairperson. Just the last comment, qualifying comment that I wish to make is this, both the applicants feel that in them being addressed about the need to alleviate the expense aspect of this Committee, they are the ones who may be regarded as being guilty to causing the expense. They say that they are not - they want it to be made crisply clear that they came here ready, able and available to proceed on the entire scenario, Durban included. That notice was not given to so many victims in the Newcastle matter is no fault of theirs. They expect ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I quite agree with that. It's no fault of theirs and the only fault that they could be blamed for is for you being late this morning, no other fault.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, apart from that, the last comment is this. The statements that we prepared is all encompassing and exhaustive. So if you will forgive me, the one that we've handed up has scratches on it. The scratches are intended to expunge those aspects. Insofar as Msibi is concerned, the second applicant - sorry, Tshika the second applicant, his unfortunately is so dissected and intertwined with other aspects that we are not intent on dealing today that I can't really hand the statement in, it's too full of scratches, I will then deal with it when he testifies.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you could even hand it in. We wont pay attention to the other incidents at this stage, you could hand in the same statement on the later hearing. It won't ...(indistinct), you could deal with the same statements before us and before the next hearing, we will deal with the relevant sections now if you so feel.
MR DEHAL: I think perhaps when we get to his statement we'll deal with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Could somebody please call our secretary next door? Right, could you ...(intervention)
MR DEHAL: I think there's a problem with the interpretation as well. The second applicant speaks Zulu, he is not picking up the interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you say something so that we could find out whether he picks it up now?
MR DEHAL: He's not picking anything up. I think he's picking English only. He's on the Zulu channel though.
CHAIRPERSON: That's channel?
MR DEHAL: One I think.
CHAIRPERSON: One?
MR DEHAL: We're on channel two.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you're not picking up anything on channel one?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay then maybe there's a fault with your ...(intervention)
MR DEHAL: I think the gentleman from behind us has gone to check the interpreters there. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Could we perhaps in the meantime - you're calling who?
MR DEHAL: The first applicant will be Mr Msibi. He is recorded as the first applicant on the bundle. That's Mr Basil Fani Msibi, 5617/97.
CHAIRPERSON: He'll be speaking?
MR DEHAL: In English.
BASIL FANI MSIBI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Msibi, you were the commander of the unit within which the second applicant, Mr Tshika, fell. Correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: I show you your application, Basil Fani Msibi, contained on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Is this your application?
MR MSIBI: Yes it is.
MR DEHAL: Is it correct that you wish to correct an error on page 2, paragraph 9(a)(iv) - right at the bottom, Mr Chairperson - where you deal with the nature and particulars of the incident and you say that the attack at oSizweni Police Station was carried out by four people you said that should have read three people?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Two of which have passed away?
MR MSIBI: One of which has passed away.
MR DEHAL: So that would be one of which has passed away.
CHAIRPERSON: Three people?
MR DEHAL: One of which or one of whom has passed away.
CHAIRPERSON: So you asked ...(indistinct)
MR DEHAL: Indeed, thank you. Mr Msibi, is it correct that at some stage pursuant to your application being handed in the evidence analyst had approached you to enquire about persons involved in this operation and you talked about these persons who were deceased but in the response you see it talks about four people of which two have died?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: That's on page 8, Mr Chairperson. Do you see that?
MR MSIBI: Yes I see it.
MR DEHAL: And the same reference is made on your statement, page 10 of the bundle, where you say in the second paragraph three people and then you mention them by name, Basil Mavuso, Tembinkosi - whose last name I cannot remember - and Shusho Bafana Ndaba, who were all involved in the attacks for which I have applied for amnesty, have passed away. Then you say only one apart from yourself is alive and that's the second applicant, Tshika, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now these persons, these four people that you talk about and the two that have died or the three that have died in page 10, they did not relate purely to this incident on the police station, they were persons who related generally to all your activities, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Msibi, your statement has been handed in - Mr Chairperson, I take it that everybody has got a copy, presumably this will be Exhibit A?
CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit A.
MR DEHAL: Mr Msibi, you have some scratches and alterations in your statement. I want you to pretend that they are not included in your statement because we agreed today to deal with these two counts only, namely the attack at oSizweni Police Station and the explosion at Glencoe Railway Station?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: You understand that?
MR MSIBI: I understand that.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Now let's begin with your statement. You say that you are an adult male, you're presently residing at 420 Elite Street, 1341 Tambochi Flats, Sunnyside, Pretoria, that your amnesty application concerns incidents which occurred around 1986 in Northern Natal?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can we have a copy of the statement for the interpreters perhaps?
MR DEHAL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You need not go through all the detail you could highlight after you've read the statement and highlight whatever you think necessary.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Sir. That's correct is it, Mr Msibi?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You began your political activity in early 1980s when you understood the prevailing political situation in the country and you took a keen interest in seeking to educate yourself on the prevailing political ideologies of the time. When you were in school you led a strike at Newcastle?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then go on to deal with what happened to you after you matriculated, you talk about your friend, Bafana Ndaba, is he the one that's late?
MR MSIBI: That's the one.
MR DEHAL: And you say you discussed politics to a great extent with him, you desired to join the MK, you subsequently moved to Swaziland after having joined MK through Soweto, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You talk about Happy Mfeka, is he alive?
MR MSIBI: I'm not sure if he's alive, the last time I saw him was in 1982.
MR DEHAL: You then said that it was your aim to formally join the ANC and become a member of the ANC structures. This Bafana was now late and you then travelled to Swaziland. On your arrival the Swaziland Police raided the ANC houses, you were arrested and taken to Malawelwela refugee camp. You then asked for political asylum from the United Nations Refugee body and you obtained that?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You were then taken to Maputo?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Pursuant to this political asylum?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: There you were an ordinary MK member and you remained as one?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thereafter you travelled to Angola. Here in Angola you were an instructor in topography and you later became a base commander?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Whilst you were a base commander you had about 180 comrades, MK comrades, under your command?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You were trained in all sorts of activities that general MK personnel are trained in, particularly intensive military training during this period?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: You then went to Soviet Union for a three month course in urban warfare.
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: On your return you went to Zambia and later to Swaziland. Whilst you were in Swaziland you received instructions from your then commander, Thembe Zulu?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thembe Zulu's brief to you was to commence political activity in the Northern Natal region. This is a region that deals with the oSizweni Police Station attack and the Glencoe railway station attack?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And indeed the Newcastle attacks as well?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say at that stage Northern Natal with the exception of Dundee and Sibongele had no UDF and ANC activities?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Your mission under the instructions of Thembe Zulu was to return to Northern Natal to achieve the political objectives of increasing ANC activities in that area?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: When was that round about?
MR MSIBI: That was in 1986.
CHAIRPERSON: 1986. Thank you.
MR DEHAL: You say you then went to Newcastle for a few months, you analysed the social economic and political situation in that area, you returned to Swaziland to discuss the situation with your commander, Thembe Zulu and thereafter you advised Bafana Ndaba who had been recalled from Angola so that he could assist with your mission in Northern Natal, Bafana and you then returned to Newcastle?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: On the next page you deal with how you lived in the Umsinga area, that you and Bafana began recruiting members to be part of a cell to carry out operations in the Newcastle area, you speak about at this time having continuously travelled to Swaziland on virtually a monthly basis to submit reports to your then commander Thembe Zulu?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: That whilst you were in Swaziland you received news that Bafana was shot in the police shoot-out?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: That you had little information regarding this shooting but Thembe Zulu, your commander, thought it would be best if you remained in Swaziland for a while until things cooled down back home?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then severed your contact with the cells that Bafana and you had created?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: For logistical reasons?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: And security reasons?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: During this stage the ANC command structure in Swaziland acknowledged Bafana's death had created a gap and that you required another individual to take Bafana's position and that some time thereafter you advised that second applicant, Tshika, had been chosen for this position?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: This is the first time that you met Tshika?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You embraced him as a part of your command?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You had met Tshika briefly in Swaziland around 1986?
MR MSIBI: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: Then your commander, Thembe Zulu, gave you instructions that you are to return to Newcastle to create more cells so that on Tshika's arrival it would be easier for you all to carry out the mission of the ANC?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then did return to Newcastle, you created a few more cells. When preparations of these cells were finalised, arrangements were made for you to fetch second applicant Tshika at Lothair near Ermelo?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You travelled to Lothair to fetch second applicant Tshika and you returned to Newcastle?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You briefed second applicant Tshika about the political situation in the area, the cells that you had created, the members of those cells and how he should go about his work there?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: It was agreed between you two that you would not however meet the cell members as they, if you did meet them, would easily then identify you and report your activities to the Security Police?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: So as to remain away from this security hazard you, however, remained in a separate room, in a separate home, only to the knowledge of second applicant Tshika?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: So that Tshika would come to you from time to time, discuss matters of political nature, targets, identified them and you would then liaise with your commanders in Swaziland to receive prior permission and you would then liaise with Tshika in response on what the outcome of that conversation with your commanders were?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: So that the members of the cell at grassroots level did not meet you so as to keep your identity away from risk?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: However thereafter, for protocol reasons, you and Tshika agreed that Tshika would visit you about once a week for briefings?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: At these weekly visits you often discussed the prevailing situation and proposed targets to achieve your mission, only Tshika the second applicant knew where you lived, the other cell members did not even know of your exact whereabouts?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that you identified during this time various targets in the area, you liaised with the command structure, Thembe Zulu, Chief of Operations, Charles Ndaba, Ralph Ophea, Chief of Staff in Swaziland. Sometimes the command structure approved the targets and at other stages they declined?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Apart from that general background you're now dealing with four legitimate targets that were identified?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: I'll deal briefly with two. The one deals with the Newcastle court explosion, the other deals with the Newcastle game centre explosion, correct? Those were the two legitimate targets amongst the four?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: But we wouldn't go into the details of those two for the time being. Now let's deal with the other two. Those were the oSizweni Police Station attack, of the 10th October 1986 and the explosion at Glencoe railway station at Dundee, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: These two were also identified as legitimate targets, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now the oSizweni Police Station attack, you chose as there were general outcry in the area because of the manner in which the police treated the people?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You believed that if you attacked the police station it would show that you were there to defend the people's interest. Secondly, you wanted to generate political interest in the ANC and further you wanted to obtain the firearms that were stored in the police station so as to arm yourselves to obtain your political ANC objectives?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: The police station was identified and agreed to as a legitimate target?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then go to the Glencoe railway station aspect and you say this was also selected as a legitimate target. You had mainly two reasons for choosing this station. Firstly you say you were aware that between Glencoe and Vryheid there was the Shlobane Coal Mine, this was the economic lifeline to a certain extent of the country, at that time economic sanctions were still in place. South Africa was trying to generate its own fuel. You believed that by targeting this area it would in fact sabotage South Africa's efforts of economic growth?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say Dundee, the second reason, the broad second reason, Dundee was politically very active at the time. The police concentrated all their efforts there, correct?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You believed that the targeting, that targeting the Glencoe area would as a result effectively mean the police would have to divert their resources?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that you did not personally deal with all these attacks except for one?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: The one incident that you participated in personally was the one dealing with the attack on oSizweni Police Station on the 10th October 1986?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say you personally involved yourself here because it was a sensitive operation?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You did not see the other members of your command as being qualified or competent enough to deal with so high profiled an operation?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: In the circumstances you accompanied the second applicant and another member, you went across to that police station and carried out that operation?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: The other person of course, apart from you and the second applicant, was Tembinkosi?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: This Tembinkosi is now late, is it?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then add later by saying it would be impractical to involve the other cell members as they had little if no training in the handling of firearms. Tembinkosi was used purely as a lookout, you believed that you should minimise casualties and that the two of you, that's namely you and second applicant Tshika, were the most competent to carry out this attack?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that after these attacks and shortly thereafter the situation became very tense in the area. People had identified you to the Security Police and it became impossible for you to operate in the area. You then returned to Swaziland?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Whilst you were in Swaziland you were involved in other activities, that is outside the borders of South Africa, but you say that you had been advised by your legal representatives not to deal with those in detail but you mentioned it purely for full disclosure because they fall outside the borders of South Africa?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Then you end up broadly by saying that these attacks that you gave instructions for were not aimed at any particular individuals, it was always directed purely at existing governmental structures, that you were aware that certain individuals were hurt during these attacks, this was unfortunate?
MR MSIBI: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say that you support the second applicant Tshika in his application for amnesty, you confirm that Tshika the second applicant performed all the acts for which he seeks amnesty whilst under your command with your full knowledge and consent?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Except for the Durban incidents?
MR MSIBI: Except for the Durban incidents, yes.
MR DEHAL: And that after each of these acts were first discussed with your seniors in command where necessary and after having first obtained their prior approval you then conveyed their approval to the second applicant and then these operations were carried out?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You then say that the political objective to destabilise the country's apartheid regime was the objective and to contribute generally towards a general economic political and social upheaval?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You say that by always acting within the purview of the ANC's then acceptable guidelines these operations were identified as falling within the ambit those guidelines?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now Mr Msibi, you speak generally in your application for amnesty on pages 3 particularly and generally elsewhere about various persons who trained in various cells under your command. You say that it is difficult for you - this is on page 3 right on the top, Mr Chairperson, in the application for amnesty, dealing with Nature and Particulars under paragraph 9(a)(iv). You say that it is difficult for you to give details about various explosive attacks that were carried out by the people you trained in South Africa. It is therefore difficult also for you to give the particulars of those attacks, the name of those victims, the place of those attacks, because given the nature of the set up of your operation, once instructions were disseminated to the commanders like second applicant Tshika, all the operations that were carried out were not all totally discussed with you and the command structure in Swaziland. Some incidents fell generally within the general purview of the guidelines of the ANC and were acceptable broadly and therefore you have no full knowledge of them all and can't give full details of them all?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: But you accept political responsibility for all of those activities?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Msibi, apart from that you confirm the correctness of the political content of your application for amnesty because you dealt with that somewhat broadly in paragraphs 10(a), 10(b), there's no need for me to read that into the record, you confirm the correctness of that?
MR MSIBI: Yes that is correct.
MR DEHAL: That deals with the political situation in the country, the apartheid regime and your wanting to bring them down as the broad principle of MK?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And lastly, do you then confirm apart from those paragraphs in Exhibit A that have been deleted the correctness of the rest of which is contained therein even if I have not dealt with them specifically?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, that's the evidence of the first applicant, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly elaborate on the attack on the police station itself, the carrying out of the attack, what he did, what they found there, was it a shoot-out, was it explosives used, details of that particular attack?
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Msibi, may I take you to that attack. Firstly you say that you, the second applicant Tshika and Tembinkosi went to this police station?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: I understand that a phone call was made to the police station to deal with a decoy?
MR MSIBI: That's what I read from the bundle but we were not part of that phone call.
MR DEHAL: So neither you nor any of your cell members made that phone call?
MR MSIBI: No.
MR DEHAL: So that decoy is not something that falls within your knowledge?
MR MSIBI: No.
MR DEHAL: And is not something that you committed?
MR MSIBI: No.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You however arrived at the police station armed?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: You three then remained outside in a nearby bush observing the police station?
MR MSIBI: Actually we were standing just on the street across the police station.
MR DEHAL: Had this police station been reconnoitred by them?
MR MSIBI: Yes it had been, two weeks before.
MR DEHAL: And the reconnaissance had led you to identify this as a legitimate target?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And did your command structures in Swaziland know about this attack?
MR MSIBI: Yes they did.
MR DEHAL: Prior to it being carried out?
MR MSIBI: They did, that's correct.
MR DEHAL: And did they support you in the application?
MR MSIBI: They did support me.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, not in the application, in the attack.
MR MSIBI: In the operation.
MR DEHAL: In the operation, yes. Now can you tell this Committee briefly what happened from the time you were on that road to the time the operation was carried out? In your own words, slowly please, remember it's being interpreted?
MR MSIBI: Basically, in the planning of the operation, we had agreed that myself and Tshika were the actual people who were supposed to carry out the operation. I was armed with an AK47 with two magazines, which means 60 rounds, three F1 handgrenades and Tshika had the same ammunition. The mode of operation that we used was that Tshika had to move in right at the gate of the police station and then start firing from there to give myself a chance to enter through the police station back through the other part of the police station at the back of the police station, that in which would give me time to get into the charge office ...(intervention)
MR DEHAL: Slowly, let them interpret it?
MR MSIBI: That would give me some time to get into the charge where we intended to get the firearms but due to the unforeseen circumstances that happened during the operation, it became difficult for us to get into the police station because we had thought that only one person would be at the gate but when we arrived there were more than two people at the gate and we could not postpone the operation because our waiting there could have exposed us before we could carry out the operation. We then decided to move in, start the attack. In the process then there was an exchange of fire, there was fire that came in from the police station and then we returned to the bushes that were near the police station.
MR DEHAL: What did Tembinkosi do?
MR MSIBI: Tembinkosi basically was on the lookout but when the fire started he was firstly shot, it took him time to recover because he ran across the street. After some time, I don't know how long did it take him, he then came back towards the police station to join us at that time. Maybe he was confused, he didn't know what to do and when we retreated he retreated with us.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was he wounded?
MR MSIBI: No, he was not wounded.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, was he shot at then he retreated?
MR MSIBI: He was not shot at, he was just running away. He was shocked by the sound of gunfire.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, shocked.
MR MSIBI: Shocked.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened to your car?
MR MSIBI: We didn't have a car.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you didn't come with a car?
MR MSIBI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: As far as you know was anybody injured?
MR MSIBI: As far as I know or I knew nobody was injured but we sent Tshika the following day to find out exactly what happened. We got it from the news that some policemen were injured but we didn't know the exact number of how many people were injured.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. Could you assist us, do know whether anybody was injured in this attack?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, two policemen were injured. Mr Ndwandwe and a Mr Msibi.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you and they've been notified?
MS MTANGA: Both of them were notified but they've indicated that they won't be coming and they have not attended the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS MTANGA: Thanks, Chairperson.
MR DEHAL: May I assist there, Mr Chairperson? These two victims statements are included in the bundle, the one at page 24 and they have both indicated in their statements as well that they do not oppose the application for amnesty.
Mr Msibi, you spoke about your reconnaissance having led you to believe that there would be no more than one person at the entrance but when you arrived there you saw that there was more than one person. I presume there were two persons?
MR MSIBI: Yes.
MR DEHAL: Now if I may just show you, there's a statement on page 24 of the bundle of Simon Tamsanka Ndwandwe. He is a policeman who was also injured, who also does not oppose your application for amnesty but he says in paragraph 2, on the 10th October 1986 and that's the date of the operation?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: He was off duty but he was at the police station assisting due to shortage of members. So is that the reason could you submit why you were taken by surprise and saw more than one?
MR MSIBI: I believe that's the reason.
MR DEHAL: Did you manage successfully to obtain firearms from the police station or was that operation to that extent unsuccessful?
MR MSIBI: To that extent the operation was unsuccessful.
MR DEHAL: And the injuries sustained to the policemen, surely this must have been anticipated?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: As being a possible event?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Policemen generally are dealt with in the first and second submissions of the ANC as legitimate targets by Mr Mac Maharaj, by Mr Modise, Mr Valli Moosa etc. Do you support and embrace those submissions about policemen and police stations as legitimate targets identified by the ANC at the time for the broader political reasons dealt with in the first and second submissions of the ANC to the TRC?
MR MSIBI: Yes, I fully embrace those submissions.
MR DEHAL: And did you at the time of your reconnaissance, discussions on this operation relative to this police station and the eventual decision to attack the police station have regard to the broader spectrum of legitimate targets within the country, hard targets, soft targets, eventual injuries to policemen and you embrace that?
MR MSIBI: That is correct, I do.
MR DEHAL: With that knowledge you proceeded with this application?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Today, how do you feel about the injuries to these two policemen?
MR MSIBI: Basically I feel sorry that people got injured but it's unfortunate that it had to happen due to the situation the country was in, this was an act that could not be avoided.
MR DEHAL: Being apologetic for their injuries inasmuch as they do not oppose your application you say that it was at the time an accepted operation, legitimate and you carried it out fully, wanting to pursue it?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Do you wish that I deal with the other operation at the same detail level or - there are no persons injured in that operation, there's no opposition as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Only for the sake of the record. I see on page 24 it's also referred to, Msibi having driven a car and parked opposite the road - that was not the applicant, it was a policeman at the station?
MR MSIBI: Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think you could proceed with the second operation.
MR DEHAL: Mr Msibi, can we just deal briefly now with that second explosion, you know the explosion at Glencoe railway station in Dundee?
MR MSIBI: Yes I do.
MR DEHAL: In your application for amnesty you broadly spoke about the Glencoe railway station, that you said there were two broad reasons, main reasons why you chose them, you talked about economic sabotage, you talked about economic sabotage, you talked about the coal, the lifeline between Vryheid, Glencoe and Shlabane Coal Mine and you talked about Dundee being very politically active, that the police concentrated all their efforts there and that targeting the Glencoe area it would effectively mean that the police would have to divert their resources, do you remember that?
MR MSIBI: Yes I do.
MR DEHAL: Now let's deal with some detail. How was this operation carried out? I know that you said you were not personally involved in this operation. Do you know what the details were as to how it was carried out? Can you tell or were you not there?
MR MSIBI: What I can inform the Committee is that the planning of the Glencoe operation was basically done by myself with the consultation of my senior commanders in Swaziland and Mr Tshika here. I think what was happening in that area, at Glencoe/Dundee area was that Sibongele, that's a Black township next to Dundee, was very active in the area and that was the only place that was active in the area at that time and most of the police resources were concentrated in that area because I think in their minds it looked like a black spot of the area and they had to work it out and considering that we thought that we need to activate other areas around Dundee politically so that to stretch the resources of the police which will give a breathing space to the activities that were taking place in Dundee and at the same time the people of Glencoe and the surrounding areas, Vryheid, to be actively involved in the political struggles that were taking place in the area.
One other consideration that we made was that we believed that Shlobane and the other areas, that is the coal mine around Vryheid and the other areas where it's a coal area, the whole area of Northern Natal, we believed that these were the coal mines that were supporting basically the Sasolburg Oil Refinery that was taking place there. I think on several occasions that oil refinery had been attacked, South Africa was in the process of trying to break the oil embargo by producing their own oil from coal so we thought it was a legitimate economic target to make sure that the coal that Sasolburg was waiting for from the mines could not reach them by blowing up the railway lines so as to make sure that nothing comes out from the coal areas to Sasolburg.
The execution of the operation, I was not there but I was fully informed of what took place and I knew exactly what was going to take place.
MR DEHAL: You gave instructions for this operation to be carried out pursuant to receipt of instruction from Swaziland's structures, command structures, that is was a legitimate target and it ought to proceed?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: For the reasons, broadly speaking, politically that you've just dealt with?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now was a limpet mine used or was there more than one limpet mine used?
MR MSIBI: I may not be exactly sure of how many limpet mines were used but the end result which was communicated in restructuring was to cause a damage that will cost more days to repair so it might have been one or more than one limpet mine used.
MR DEHAL: Was it intended to derail the trucks itself or was the railway lines intended to be destroyed?
MR MSIBI: It was the railway lines that were intended to be destroyed.
MR DEHAL: And these instructions to carry out the operation were given by you to second applicant and second applicant had the discretion to decide on who he would embrace from all the cells, the various cells, to help him in the execution?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: So more than that you cannot give any further details?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Did you support second applicant on his application for amnesty on this operation?
MR MSIBI: That is correct, I fully support it.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, thank you, I have a few. Mr Msibi, in your affidavit on page 4, paragraph 14, you state that your operations or the instructions that you were given were directed purely at existing government structures?
MR MSIBI: Maybe I should have said the then existing government structures.
MS MTANGA: What was the position of the policemen who worked in those structures in regard to these instructions?
MR MSIBI: It's very unfortunate, as I said before, because the ANC submissions made it clear that the police were seen as a legitimate target. In most cases the policemen were used to defend the apartheid laws that were being executed and they were the people who were the first line in defence of apartheid. That's how they were viewed so as much as we saw that some people get hurt but as I said it was an unfortunate situation that it had to happen that way. I think it's basically why the issue of armed struggle was also coupled with the political education, it was also necessary to educate those policemen for them to understand not to defend the apartheid policies but unfortunately it had to go concurrently, it couldn't wait and then started then.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's common cause, the Committee is aware of, that policemen were regarded as legitimate targets.
MS MTANGA: What was your plan and your attitude towards people who had been at the police station at that time or in the vicinity of the police station?
MR MSIBI: I think if you look at the timing of the attack it was meant to make sure that as few as possible innocent people would be at the police station at that time. We were actually trying to avoid a situation by where you will find that civilians were caught in the crossfire which I think and am still convinced by now that at least we successfully achieved that objective.
MS MTANGA: On page 100 - sorry, on page 64 of the bundle, we have an affidavit by Mr Mazibuko, Mavena Ismail Mazibuko and further on page 100, there's a reference in the indictment to the attack on the vehicle of Mr Mazibuko.
MR DEHAL: Sorry, can I just get to that page?
MS MTANGA: Okay.
MR DEHAL: What page is that?
MS MTANGA: The affidavit is on page 64 and the reference on the indictment is on page 100.
MR DEHAL: What paragraph of page 64?
MS MTANGA: I'm just dealing with the affidavit in general, that Mr Mazibuko was shot at during that incident at the police station and according to page 100, that is in the court documents, it was alleged that this person was shot by Tembinkosi who was said then is accused number three. What is your attitude towards that?
MR MSIBI: Firstly, unfortunately, it is in Afrikaans and I don't understand Afrikaans and the second point, I'm not sure because firstly I was not arrested - of the legitimate of this indictment, it came out in Mr Tshika's trial.
MS MTANGA: Okay, if I may just explain to you, Mr Mazibuko has attended this hearing, he was a civilian driving a vehicle, Toyota bakkie, NN9436 as described on page 64 and his evidence is that he was shot at by a person and he was with a friend in that vehicle and he was shot at during the incident at the police station and he was not wearing any police clothes, he was just an ordinary civilian driving his car.
MR MSIBI: I think I said earlier on that the timing of the attack was meant to minimise the civilian population being caught only in the crossfire. According to my knowledge and according to what Tembinkosi - I'm sorry, Mr Tshika told us, after his revisiting the police station the following day is that we were not aware of any civilian that got hurt during the operation.
MS MTANGA: My next question is you've indicated that the area of oSizweni, was some political activity in the area?
Just excuse me for a second? Okay, you say in your affidavit, that's page two paragraph 10:
"The oSizweni Police Station, I chose this as there was a general outcry in the area because of the manner in which the police treated the people."
And you further go on and say you wanted to generate political interest in the ANC but I'm more interested on the first issue where you say there was a general outcry about how can we be treated by the police. According to the two affidavits of the two policemen, that is Mr Ndwandwe and Mr Msibi, those are on page 32 and page 30 of the bundle, they testified that the area of oSizweni was very quiet politically and there was no such conflict between the community and the police. What do you say to this?
MR DEHAL: Sorry, before he answers, least the record reads incorrectly, they have not testified, the questioning in that regard is incorrect, all they've done is deposed to affidavits to that effect, that is untested versions. I also see that present in there and against that background ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: They've been put as affidavits statements in affidavits and he's being asked for his comment?
MR DEHAL: Yes except that it's not testimony.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it's a statement and on the affidavit it's not testimony in a court but it's evidence before us, you've been given copies thereof and we would attach, we'll decide what value can be attached because you're not in a position to cross-examine them and to test their affidavits.
MR MSIBI: That's correct, there was no political activity in the oSizweni area but as to the brutality of the then KZN in the area that's what prompted us to take that action.
MS MTANGA: Can you help me understand, when you say there was brutality by the police, if there was no political activity in the area how would this brutality come out or how did you see it coming out?
MR MSIBI: The brutality in that area basically, as I said, there was no political activity in the area, it was - I think you should realise that the Newcastle area the establishment of KZN Police. There was animosity between the community and then that structure and for the KZN Police to stamp authority, on several occasions people were raided at night for no apparent reason, people were beaten on the streets, if you find a girl standing with a boy they will be beaten up, taken, arrested for the night and all those things. That was not political but these were the brutalities that were committed by KwaZulu Police to the general community.
MS MTANGA: Thank you. Chairperson, can I be allowed to just have a minute or two consultation with Mr Mazibuko?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would you like us to have a short adjournment?
MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Msibi, there are two question that Mr Mazibuko would like to put to you. The first one being that what political objective were you seeking would you say was sought in the attack of his car because his evidence is that he was driving far away from the police station, driving from a different direction from the police station and he was attacked by someone who could see that he was a civilian?
MR DEHAL: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, I have difficulty with that question because we've already got on record a question dealing with this person Mazibuko, and the answer from the applicant was at best he was caught in crossfire, "I did not know of him, he was not identified."
CHAIRPERSON: He could tell us that, he could tell us that that could be his answer to the - allow him to give his answer, it's a legitimate question. Let her ask it and allow him to answer it, it's not necessary for you to interrupt and give the evidence.
MR DEHAL: No, I'm not giving the evidence, I'm simply saying what's on record. What's on record is that he's already ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: She could ask him about it again, I would allow the question.
MR DEHAL: Thank you Chairperson.
MR MSIBI: I think as I said earlier on it might have been a civilian caught in the crossfire but what then surprises me is as you referred on page 64, I can't read Afrikaans, but you say to me he mentioned Tembinkosi, that surprises me. It was dark at night, he was driving ...(intervention)
MS MTANGA: May I correct you? He was said to be the accused number three who actually shot at Mr Mazibuko, that's what the court documents say there?
MR MSIBI: Unfortunately I'm not aware of that. I was there in the operation, I didn't see that action taking place.
MS MTANGA: Are you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. You yourself didn't shoot at him?
MR MSIBI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: You're not aware whether there could be a straight bullet hitting the car?
MR MSIBI: There could have been a straight bullet because there was a crossfire, the police were also back at us.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and on Mr Mazibuko's version or on the police version they linked this bullet to Mr Tembinkosi but you're not aware, he wasn't with you at the time?
MR MSIBI: He was with me at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but not next to you in the sense when the shooting took place, he was shot and he ran into the bushes?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were separated at one stage?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't know what he did at that stage when he ran into the bushes, maybe he got frightened and he started shooting at people?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. The second question that Mr Mazibuko would like to put to you is he wants to know if are you aware that after this incident his vehicle disappeared to this day and he doesn't know what happened to it. It was a subject matter of being evidence in court against your co-applicant Mr Tshika and it disappeared and it could not be traced. Are you aware of this?
MR MSIBI: I'm not aware of that. Maybe to clarify some matters because it might leave another impression on this Committee is that my units, under no circumstances were they involved in any criminal activity because I would regard that as a criminal activity. Thank you.
MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Msibi, I'm glad that you informed us that your units weren't involved in criminal activities. You never authorised any criminal activities yourself, authorised them to rob for instance a shop or anything like that?
MR MSIBI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Msibi, at the time when you fired did you simply fire to scare off any resistance or did you fire regardless of whether someone could get killed or wounded in the attack?
MR MSIBI: I think it would be a joy of every soldier if you can fire and get no resistance because it means you can get whatever you want without any resistance. We wished there could be no resistance but we knew there was going to be resistance.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you foresee a possible death of a person?
MR MSIBI: Yes we did.
ADV BOSMAN: Just bear with me one moment, Chairperson?
As far as this vehicle is concerned did you observe a vehicle at any time whilst this attack was on the go?
MR MSIBI: No, the only vehicle we observed was a police vehicle that was parked at the gate when we arrived.
ADV BOSMAN: And the firearms that you were carrying, I take it that those were unlicensed firearms?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: So for purposes of the law you were in unlawful possession of firearms?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: Yes, thank you. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that would form part of your application in this case, part and parcel of the amnesty you're seeking?
MR DEHAL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Being in possession of the firearms connected with this particular attack?
MR DEHAL: And generally firearms with all operations. You see, as a commander he brought into the country lots of firearms, ammunition, limpet mines, explosives and was the conduit pipe for the transferral of these things.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that be covered by his application?
MR MSIBI: He speaks broadly and generally about that, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: He is speaking about contravention of the Terrorist Act and in the indictment referred to there was mention of a lot of weapons being involved in different attacks and he is referring to the case, so it would be covered I think?
MR DEHAL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DEHAL: Mr Chairperson, could I just for the sake of clarity and again least the incorrect impression be created, if the record read later, deals with just two aspects emanating from my learned colleagues questions?
Mr Chairperson, the first, second submissions of ANC and the Security Force hearings day one are aspects that deal at length with the type of activities the applicant is involved in. I did not want earlier to deal with them for fear that I'll burn the record but I want to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Would you kindly refer us to the pages, it would be sufficient.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Firstly, Mr Msibi, you see here on the further submissions and responses by the ANC to questions raised by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, 12th May 1997, on page 17, do you recall this having been said in the submissions at the conclusion? Do you mind just reading this part, I'll show you from here to here? It's just one paragraph.
MR MSIBI
"As stated in our main submission the ANC takes collective responsibility for all bona fide MK actions. We regret that deaths and injuries to civilians arising from MK armed actions, we apologise to the their families and next-of-kin for the suffering and hurt that these actions caused. Where applicable, MK cadres have their applications for amnesty with regard to these actions."
MR DEHAL: Thank you. You said earlier that you embraced these submissions?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Do you repeat the sentiments expressed herein to the victims as well?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Now if I may take you to the Security Force hearing transcript day one on the 12th May 1997, held at Cape Town, on page 68 onwards Mr Tim Modise after Mr Valli Moosa spoke was the one who dealt with police personnel as legitimate targets generally. Do you mind just reading this one paragraph here when the Chairperson asked Mr Modise questions about the policemen, the Modise then talks about it?
MR MSIBI: It reads as such
"Thank you Mr Chairperson. I think we need to understand exactly how the police were used in this country. They were actually serving in the front line of oppressive forces. Amongst them you found the most brutal, in fact they were leading insofar as torture and brutality was concerned. This brutality was not only confined to those who were opposing them with arms in hand but even ordinary Black public was terrorised by these policemen. In fact they were the main agents of oppressive regime. Soldiers fought against us, sometimes soldiers were also made to brutalise the population in the township but key amongst these factors of repression were police. It is true an attempt was made to try and win some of them over. We directed propaganda against them to try with the hope of winning them over but we have not been very successful, neither were we able to try and get them to change their ways against the population. It is so far that reason that they were targeted."
MR DEHAL: Do you embrace that generally as an acceptable explanation as well?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Do you see thereafter ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dehal, I've told you that for the purposes of this hearing we accept that the police were legitimate targets, so I don't think you need go into that further. We've heard lots of evidence about that and we have all through the hearings - if we've got any problem with that, we'll really put it to you and tell you listen, deal with this, but I've got no problem as far as the targeting of the police station was concerned in the sense that police were legitimate targets.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted to you, in fact it saves me a lot of time. Can I just deal at a tail end with that aspect but at a different - at a tangent level? It's just one last aspect.
Mr Msibi, you see here after in this transcript of the first days Security Force hearings Mr Modise is then questioned about some good policemen that existed and he speaks about the good policemen were blurred by the actions of those who were brutal and that in fact all policemen were given the task of finding the ...(indistinct) persons and eliminating them. You were aware of this were you not?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: And that generally the police were the front-line of the counter-mobilisation struggle strategy against our offensive?
MR MSIBI: That is correct.
MR DEHAL: Thank you. Mr Chairperson, that is all. If I may just repeat that this applicant has embraced, endorsed and asked that his application for amnesty be read in conjunction with the first day, the second day's submissions and the Security Force hearings. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DEHAL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any further questions? Are you calling the second applicant?
MR DEHAL: Indeed yes. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not aware of time at this stage.
MR DEHAL: It's twenty past twelve.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Let's proceed with the second applicant.
WITNESS EXCUSED
