ON RESUMPTION
MR MOLEFE: I now beg leave to call George Mathe, he is the third applicant.
GEORGE MATHE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe?
EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mathe, I take it that you were staying in Atteridgeville during the commission of the offences for which you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?
MR MATHE: That is right.
MR MOLEFE: You were also recruited into the African National Congress and received training as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?
MR MATHE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, could you just point out in respect of which offences, so that we could have a picture in respect of which ...
MR MOLEFE: Thank you. Mr Mathe will be applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of the three policemen at 3 Mariana Street and also for the civilians who were injured there, he will also be applying for - let me just confer with him - he will also be applying for the blast which happened at the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street, the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing. He will also be applying for amnesty in respect of the blast that took place at Proes Street, that is the one where it was placed underneath a Renault vehicle, and also for escaping from Modderbee prison and leaving the country unlawfully.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Molefe.
MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you just briefly explain to us as to when were you recruited into the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe and what training did you receive?
MR MATHE: My first contact with the ANC was in 1982. I received my crash course training in 1987.
CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts did you receive your training Mr Mathe?
MR MATHE: Well, I can say that - well before I met this Unit, I was working with a Unit which was mainly for propaganda purposes in terms, it was a matter of distributing ANC literature and the South African Communist Party literature.
INTERPRETER: I think the speaker is listening to Zulu interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I have just had interception from the Interpreter's box saying that, are you receiving Zulu interpretation Mr Mathe?
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you want?
MR MATHE: I know Sotho myself.
INTERPRETER: You can switch it to channel 2. Mr Mathe, if you can switch to channel 2.
MR MOLEFE: In actual fact, Mr Mathe will conduct his ...
CHAIRPERSON: I think if you switch to channel 2 you will get the English, and it is louder, you pick it up clearer. Just put it on number 2 Mr Mathe. Is that better?
MR MATHE: Yes, it is better.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the question, you said you used to work for a Unit for propaganda purposes, distributing pamphlets, etc, but what I asked you was, you said that you received crash course training in 1987.
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that military training?
MR MATHE: Yes, it was.
CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts did you receive that, overseas, abroad or locally?
MR MATHE: It was within the country, inside the country.
CHAIRPERSON: Where?
MR MATHE: Firstly, my first crash course was at Atteridgeville. It was mainly on the use of a pistol and AK47.
At a later stage I received hand grenade crash course at Soweto. In 1988, after I met the Unit, which I am here with, I received my crash course, further crash course on the same weapons and on different manoeuvres.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe?
MR MOLEFE: Thank you. Who gave you this training?
MR MATHE: Well, the one in 1987, it was a guy named Silver whom I never saw again after the training. In 1987, I was trained by the late Mr Maponya.
MR MOLEFE: All right, you are firstly applying for amnesty in respect of the incident which happened at 3 Mariana Street, on the 18th of March 1988. Can you just briefly explain to us as to what was your role?
MR MATHE: In that incident, myself, Francis and Ernest ...
CHAIRPERSON: Francis being Mr Pitsi?
MR MATHE: Yes, we were ordered to execute.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you said yourself, Mr Pitsi and?
MR MATHE: Myself, Mr Pitsi and Mr Ramadite.
CHAIRPERSON: Continue?
MR MATHE: We were ordered to execute that very same operation and my main role was to be part of the shooting.
MR MOLEFE: Who gave you the orders?
MR MATHE: I received orders from Odirele Mensday Maponya.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't catch that name?
MR MATHE: From Mr Maponya.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps draw the microphone a little bit nearer to you?
MR MOLEFE: And can you just give us a description of what happened when you went to this scene?
MR MATHE: When we went to the scene, initially let me say, I was left at a certain place because in the Unit I was in charge of the logistic. Before the attack I had to remain with the weapons and the uniform, so Ernest and Francis went to reconnoitre the place for the last time, and when they came, we moved close to the target.
At the target, when we were still about to go to it, it happened that somebody saw us before we can put on our full uniform.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed Mr Mathe. Could you describe what your uniform was?
MR MATHE: Our uniform was overalls, brown overalls.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you have any head gear, balaclava or whatever?
MR MATHE: Stockings.
CHAIRPERSON: Stockings?
MR MATHE: Stockings, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you say that you were seen at the target area, you were seen by somebody before you had put on your uniforms?
MR MATHE: Yes, and what I want to explain is that the person who saw us was moving towards the intended target. I mean it was the direction of where we were intending to go to.
We had to quickly try to overtake him before he reached there, as he was going to alert the victims.
MR MOLEFE: According to your knowledge, who were the intended targets in respect of that operation?
MR MATHE: In that operation the intended targets were the policemen who frequented that shebeen.
ADV DE JAGER: You have mentioned this person now, and you have left it in the air. What happened, did you overtake him, did you do something to him?
MR MATHE: No, in fact what we did, we overtook him
MR MOLEFE: Yes, and you can continue and explain what happened after you overtook this person.
MR MATHE: While reaching the target, Francis started shooting, but as planned initially, we couldn't maintain skirmish.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you couldn't maintain the what?
MR MATHE: The skirmish as planned, because that person disturbed us. At the target, I don't know how many shots I fired and in the process, due to the disturbance, as a result, we failed to maintain the initial plan, I mean the skirmish, Francis was injured.
MR MOLEFE: What type of firearm were you using and what type was Francis using?
MR MATHE: Francis was using the AK47 and I was using the pistol.
CHAIRPERSON: The Makorov?
MR MATHE: Yes, the Makorov.
MR MOLEFE: And is it so that you accidentally shot Francis.
MR MATHE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRPERSON: What weapon did Ramadite have?
MR MATHE: He was having a hand grenade.
MR MOLEFE: Was the hand grenade hurled at that house?
MR MATHE: No.
MR MOLEFE: Apparently the owner of the house as well as another civilian were injured. Did you know about this and if so, how did it happen or how could it have happened?
MR MATHE: Well, in that operation, I can say we were not intending to injure any of the civilians. It happened as a result I think, perhaps it might have been ricocheted or maybe, well the aiming was not that accurate and that is why they were hit.
MR MOLEFE: Do you know if the policemen who were there, do you know if they retaliated, if they shot back?
MR MATHE: That I cannot say. I am not sure.
MR MOLEFE: Can you just give us any specific reasons why these policemen who were frequenting this shebeen were targeted?
MR MATHE: I was born in Atteridgeville, I grew up in Atteridgeville. What I have seen in Atteridgeville during my upbringing, I was a student activist and part of the community. There were calls, people were urged to join the ranks of the liberation movements in order to destroy apartheid.
From what happened in the township, there was no any let me say, direct involvement of the Security Forces as I can say, but the very CID, Criminal Investigating police in the department, I mean in Atteridgeville, were the ones who were dealing with the political related cases.
In short I can say they played a role which was if I can say, perceived to have been for the Security Forces.
MR MOLEFE: Were these policemen known to you personally, that is the deceased policemen?
MR MATHE: At that stage the one who was very known to me was the late Mr Mphahlele.
MR MOLEFE: How did you come to know Mr Mphahlele?
MR MATHE: Somewhere in the mid-1980's I was arrested by Mr Mphahlele and his colleagues on suspicion. I was locked without any charge after severe beating, let me say, torture. I was denied hospital access. I was held in custody for a period of four days without medical treatment.
MR MOLEFE: When you were arrested by Mr Mphahlele, you are talking about being denied medical treatment, did you suffer injuries?
MR MATHE: Yes, I still have scars on my head.
MR MOLEFE: Mr Chair, I wonder if it is appropriate for him to show us his scars?
CHAIRPERSON: If he wants to, he can show them. The witness indicates a number of scars, I can see from this distance, which is about seven meters away from him, about four or five scars, each of them being about two to two and a half centimetres at length, right at the back of the head.
Would you agree with that Mr Mathe as being a reasonable description of the scars that you have shown?
MR MOLEFE: That is correct.
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR MOLEFE: Right, the policemen who passed away, were they the only targets at that particular place and time?
MR MATHE: No, well they were not.
MR MOLEFE: Who were the other targets?
MR MATHE: There was another well, notorious policeman known in Atteridgeville by the name of David, I think Motau, Freeman and Lesley.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you said the other policemen who were targeted were David Motau, is that one person?
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And then Freeman and Lesley?
MR MATHE: And Lesley.
CHAIRPERSON: And Lesley, so there were three others?
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: David Motau, one called Freeman and another called Lesley?
MR MOLEFE: Besides the fact that these particular policemen, this is the deceased policemen as well as the others who fortunately survived, besides the reasons that you have given that they were investigating politically related matters and so forth, what other reasons was advanced for targeting them?
MR MATHE: I can say, well Atteridgeville, in Atteridgeville we never experienced the so-called black on black violence. But events happened whereby our comrades' houses were bombed, of which by then one logically could have said if there was any clashes between different political parties, that it is politically related, but it was common knowledge that it was the police who were involved behind the bombings.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say the police, do you talk about the police in general or these particular policemen whom you have named?
MR MATHE: Who was exactly involved, I cannot say amongst the police, but it was seen as somebody who was an instrument of the then government.
MR MOLEFE: Are you also aware that during or about that time, an interdict was sought by the Legal Resources Centre against for instance David Motau, interdicting him from attacking activists and their homes?
MR MATHE: Come again?
MR MOLEFE: Are you aware of the interdict which was granted against David Motau in respect of attacking activists' homes and the activists themselves?
MR MATHE: Yes, I am aware of it.
MR MOLEFE: Is there any other thing you would like to say about this particular event?
MR MATHE: All that I would like to say in this particular event is that under normal circumstances, a thing like that couldn't have happened.
I feel that some families have lost their beloved ones, I know that they have got kids to raise, I know that some of them were breadwinners as a result of that incident, to them I am saying I am sorry.
MR MOLEFE: Right, you also apply for amnesty in respect of the blast which took place at Proes Street.
ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Molefe, do you mind if I can just interpose here for a moment, pertaining to the incident you have just been dealing with at the moment.
Mr Mathe, were there any other political activists who were arrested, tortured and interrogated by the police you have mentioned, save for yourself?
MR MATHE: Come again?
ADV SANDI: Are there any other comrades from your organisation who were picked up, tortured and interrogated by the police that you have just mentioned?
MR MATHE: Yes. With a guy like Ernest Ramadite, he is a guy who was arrested many times, of which I lost count of.
ADV SANDI: Is that something that was happening generally?
MR MATHE: Yes, it was happening, it was happening generally.
ADV SANDI: You said Mr Mphahlele, when he arrested you he was in the company of his colleagues. Who were these police?
MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, it was on the day we were supposed to bury a lady who was killed because of her son's involvement, a grenade was hurled at the house and as a result, the old lady passed away.
I was on my way to attend the funeral when I was arrested.
ADV SANDI: The three police we are talking about today, who were attacked and killed, were they amongst those who were in the company of Mr Mphahlele?
MR MATHE: Mr Mphahlele was definitely present.
ADV SANDI: The three police who were killed at Mamelodi, were they amongst them?
MR MATHE: At Atteridgeville?
ADV SANDI: Yes?
MR MATHE: I have mentioned Mr Mphahlele, the one I am definitely sure of, he was.
ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I think just on this last incident, before you proceed Mr Molefe.
In your evidence Mr Mathe, you paint a picture of you and your comrades having to hurry to the house because you had been seen before you had put on your uniforms, and you had to overtake this person, and immediately when you got to the house, the shooting started and it wasn't as smooth as you had hoped it to be because of what you referred to, the skirmish, because of this person who had interrupted you.
Yet when evidence was given earlier by another applicant which you heard, we heard that by Mr Pitsi, that they got to the house, they checked it out, they saw a person, they decided to come from a different angle, so as not to shoot because they might hit people who were in the front door and standing there, and they went around the other side, and they came from a different angle to avoid hitting innocent people, etc. That doesn't fit in at all with the picture that you paint.
The picture painted by Mr Pitsi is a deliberate planned operation, that was conducted in an orderly and proper manner if I can put it that way. Yours paint the picture of a hurried operation, you had to run there, get there, pass this guy, shoot to such an extent that you even shot your own comrade? What was the actual position there?
Were you there Mr Molefe?
MR MOLEFE: No, no, I want to refer to the applicant's evidence in chief. He said that he was in charge of logistics, that he was in charge of the hardware which was used and that he was in charge of the uniforms that were used and that the last people who went to do the last reconnaissance, were Ramadite and Francis. That is his evidence in chief.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, what do you say to what I said, what do you say Mr Mathe? You say Mr Pitsi didn't mention passing this person, having to get passed this other person who had seen them.
MR MATHE: Maybe Mr Chairman, it slipped off his mind.
CHAIRPERSON: So from where did you approach the house?
MR MATHE: We approached the house from, yes well, as I have said, well, I was in charge of all the materials which we were supposed to use, in fact to be used there, they went to ...
ADV DE JAGER: The guns also? The guns were with you?
MR MATHE: They were with me, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Pitsi says is that they even hid their guns when they moved around, I think it was after that. In any event, you can carry on Mr Molefe, we will look at that, unless you want to deal with it with your client now, we can consider that when we consider the evidence.
MR MOLEFE: Right. You are also applying for amnesty in respect of the blast which took place at Proes Street, it was a limpet mine that exploded under a Renault. Can you just briefly tell us what your involvement in respect of that blast it?
MR MATHE: I was ordered to place a limpet mine, mini limpet mine, at any spot around Pretoria, isolated spot, and I was strictly ordered to avoid any casualties, especially civilians.
MR MOLEFE: What was the purpose of that blast?
MR MATHE: The purpose of the blast was to undermine the security of the then regime. The purpose of that blast was to make the ANC presence felt. I mean it was intended that with two blasts almost, well simultaneously, everybody will know that MK was around Pretoria.
MR MOLEFE: Is it so that this blast happened at the same time as the so-called Juicy Lucy blast? Almost at the same time?
MR MATHE: Almost.
MR MOLEFE: Now, was there anybody injured at the Proes Street blast?
MR MATHE: Not any, no.
MR MOLEFE: But was there damage to property?
MR MATHE: Yes, there was.
MR MOLEFE: And is that now the Renault and what else?
MR MATHE: I know only of the Renault.
MR MOLEFE: The Juicy Lucy blast, or maybe if I move to the Juicy Lucy blast, let me go back again to the Proes Street blast.
Were you alone when you placed this limpet mine under the Renault?
MR MATHE: Yes, I was alone.
MR MOLEFE: Right. Before we go to the Juicy Lucy issue, can you just tell us how you travelled for instance to town to go and commit these offences?
MR MATHE: Yes, we started off from Atteridgeville, we used the taxi to reach the place.
ADV DE JAGER: You say we, who is we?
MR MATHE: I was with Ernest Ramadite. I would like to assure this Committee that even though we had the limpet mines with us, they were not set. I mean the timing devices were not activated.
MR MOLEFE: When did you part with Ernest?
MR MATHE: We parted at the taxi rank.
MR MOLEFE: Is that now before the blasts?
MR MATHE: Yes, it was before the blast.
MR MOLEFE: Can you also briefly tell us as to how were there blasts planned and who was present when the planning was done, and who provided you with the limpet mines?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, before you - keep that question in mind, you parted at the taxi rank. Would that be the taxi rank in Vermeulen Street which Mr Pitsi referred to or was it at another taxi rank?
MR MATHE: I parted with Ernest at Blue taxi rank.
MR MOLEFE: Okay, can you just briefly tell us how were these blasts planned?
MR MATHE: Yes, we had a planning session. Those present at that time was the late Odirele, if I am not mistaken, I think it was Mr Toka, Francis Pitsi, Ernest and myself.
MR MOLEFE: Mr Maleka was already a member of your Unit at that time, is that correct?
MR MATHE: No, he wasn't.
MR MOLEFE: He was not part of the planning of this?
MR MATHE: He was not part of the planning.
MR MOLEFE: Okay. Now what was the instruction, okay you have already explained what your instructions were in respect of Proes Street, but do you know what instructions were given to Ernest in respect of his blast?
MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, Ernest was to place a limpet mine at the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, which at the time when we sat and talked, it was a matter of that area housed the Ministry of Finance offices, Trade and Industry and the Defence Force.
MR MOLEFE: Was Ernest specifically told where to go and place this limpet mine?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR MOLEFE: I mean specific in terms of saying in a particular flower pot, or underneath a table at a particular place?
MR MATHE: No, in that sense, no.
CHAIRPERSON: Where was he told to place the limpet mine?
MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, he was told just in the vicinity there.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you take the intersection of Vermeulen and Andries Street, you've got four corners. There is four corners, was there anything more specific or was it just at the intersection or at the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street?
MR MATHE: I can't remember of him being that straight, specific let me say.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Molefe, Mr Mathe, I notice that you mentioned that in that vicinity there were Finance, Trade and Industry department offices. Was that an important factor when you took the decision that the limpet mine should be placed in that vicinity?
MR MATHE: You mean in relation to the Trade and Industry offices?
ADV SANDI: Yes.
MR MATHE: I had no say, I was just subordinated myself. I couldn't take any decision, not even, I mean question anything.
ADV SANDI: So this limpet mine was solely directed to members of the SADF?
MR MATHE: I think from the initial planning, it was directed at them and it was a matter of, let me just put it like this from what we were briefed, if one is having a limpet mine, and deactivates a limpet mine, one can intend to go to a specific target. If the target is not suitable, one must have an alternative target.
ADV SANDI: Finance, Trade and Industry departments, were they considered to be alternative targets?
MR MATHE: It was one of the apartheid structures.
ADV DE JAGER: Were they ever discussed in any planning, that Trade and Industry or the Minister of Finance's offices would be a target? Was that ever discussed where you were present?
MR MATHE: In my presence, I remember Ernest raising such things. He was more familiar with Pretoria than myself.
CHAIRPERSON: That is Mr Pitsi?
MR MATHE: Ernest Ramadite.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh. And Mr Pitsi, was he present?
MR MATHE: When that was discussed?
ADV DE JAGER: Yes?
MR MATHE: Yes, he was.
ADV DE JAGER: So it wasn't only the soldiers, it was discussed that all the civil servants there would be targets?
MR MATHE: No, what I am trying to say is Ernest is the one who came with alternatives, I mean in case of he can get disturbances from any other places from the intended target, what can he do with the mine if he is having it with him?
ADV DE JAGER: So it was discussed and it was planned that if he can't reach the soldiers, then you could target the people working at Finance?
MR MATHE: He is the one who was just raising that, in case of something.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, what was said if he raised it, this was a meeting, people were discussing. What was decided?
MR MATHE: Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember, he was strictly - let me not say strictly - but he was ordered to make sure that it is at the intended target.
CHAIRPERSON: Which was?
MR MATHE: Which was the soldiers who used to frequent the place.
ADV SANDI: Should we understand Mr Mathe, should we understand that to mean, you mean to say this thing about the Finance and the Trade and Industry departments, was just mentioned by Mr Ramadite in passing, and it was never followed, is that the position?
MR MATHE: He was just mentioning it in passing.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: When they informed you that they've got permission from Botswana and Lusaka to target this specific target, did they mention that they had permission to target civil servants, working at Trade and Industry or at Finance or at the State library or wherever?
MR MATHE: I was never informed of that.
ADV DE JAGER: So as far as you were concerned, there was no permission to target any other people, but the soldiers?
MR MATHE: Yes, from what I heard from the Commanders.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?
MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. If I understand you correctly, Ernest was given the final or he was told to use his discretion as to where he was finally going to place the limpet mine, is that correct?
MR MATHE: Yes, the alternatives, he has to use his own discretion.
ADV DE JAGER: That is rather a leading question Mr Molefe. Kindly refrain from putting leading questions, if it is on such a crucial aspect. I don't mind you leading on other aspects.
MR MOLEFE: Or maybe let me rephrase it.
ADV DE JAGER: No, you've already put the question, so the damage is done. You can't do anything to it now.
MR MOLEFE: Yes. According to what has already been said in this hearing, apparently this limpet mine was placed in a flower pot, is that correct?
MR MATHE: Yes, it is correct.
MR MOLEFE: Now you have been trained in the use of limpet mines, is that right?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR MOLEFE: If this limpet mine was just placed on a sidewalk, not in a flower pot, as opposed to what Ernest did, placing it in a flower pot, what difference would it have made?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, will all respect, may I just at this point in time, in view of the fact that this particular applicant clearly indicated that he was not present when the placing of that particular limpet mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, just request the relevance of my learned friend's questions to this applicant in respect thereof, because there is no evidence before this Commission as to the exact situation prevailing there, in other words, to take one simple example, we don't know whether this flower box was filled with soil to the brim of it, whether there was a protruding edge that would have dampened the impact of the explosion.
With great respect, I would submit that the questioning of this applicant as to that particular aspect, is irrelevant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Molefe, does the applicant, did he see the flower pot before the bomb was placed in it, can he describe it?
MR MOLEFE: Do you know the kind of flower pot?
CHAIRPERSON: The flower pot, the said flower pot? Not the kind, the very one, the same one, did he see it that day?
MR MOLEFE: I am referring to that?
MR MATHE: I don't know it. Ernest told me about it after the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you?
MR MATHE: He told me that it was a concrete flower pot.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MATHE: And that it had soil of which there was a space, he told me, from the flowers to the end of the pot.
ADV DE JAGER: But you know that vicinity, isn't there flower pots built around that whole building? My recollection, I haven't seen it recently, but I have the recollection that there were sort of concrete flower pots and a bench to sit, that sort of thing?
MR MATHE: I am not familiar with the vicinity.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathe, you were trained in the use of limpet mines, do you know all about limpet mines, their power, how they work, that sort of thing from a technical point of view, from a scientific point of view, in other words, are you in a position to comment on the effect of a mine under one condition as opposed to the effect of a mine under another condition as an expert?
MR MATHE: I think that Mr Chairman, will need a specialist
CHAIRPERSON: Well, the answer to his question, would it be of any relevance Mr Molefe.
MR MOLEFE: Then we withdraw it.
CHAIRPERSON: You know, whether what his view is, what it would be if it was on the pavement. My initial reaction to your question was that if it was just placed on the pavement, no one would have got injured, because everyone would have seen it and kept away?
MR MOLEFE: Yes. We withdraw that question. You maintain that your actions as a member of this Unit, were taken after you had received commands from your Commanders?
MR MATHE: Yes, that is true.
MR MOLEFE: I just want to refer to some part of the bundle, Mr Chairman, on page 92 of the bundle you are aware of the fact that amongst the buildings that were damaged there, it was the State library, it is also alleged that the Magistrate court building was damaged and that the Old Mutual building was damaged as well as a vehicle belonging to the South African Defence Force?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, once again with respect, I do not want to curtail my learned friend in the leading of his applicant's evidence, but it is clear, it transpired from his evidence up to this point, that he was not involved in this particular blast, so I fail to see the relevance of his commentary or his knowledge or non-knowledge of buildings being damaged in this particular blast. I fail to see the relevance of that evidence presented by this applicant and furthermore, if I may just point out to the Honourable Commission, that it is not the Magistrate court building at all that was damaged, there is a particular building in that area with the name the Landdrost Gebou, it has got nothing to do with the Magistrate court building at all.
The Magistrates' court is situated in Pretorius Street at the corners of Pretorius and Schubert Streets, which are several street blocks away from that particular vicinity. There might be a total misconception as to the relevance of that name, it is merely a name attached to a particular building.
But I maintain that I fail to see the relevancy of this evidence led by this particular applicant, there was a similar attempt by my learned friend, Mr Molefe, during re-examination, to introduce this evidence in cross-examination of another applicant, which in any case was at that stage not represented by him.
I would submit that we have lost a lot of time during the course of this proceedings, and we are dwelling unnecessarily on matters which is not relevant to the evidence of a particular applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?
MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, it is my client's evidence in chief.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can ask him which buildings were damaged, you don't have to tell him the names and then get him to confirm it, because that is really leading.
Mr Dreyer, in the same breath, this is part of the indictment before us. Is it common cause that these buildings were damaged, do you deny that these buildings listed on page 92 were damaged? I mean not much turns on it. I appreciate the pointing out of the Landdrost Building not being the Magistrate's court, but is this in dispute?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, no, it is not in dispute. The objection raised was merely on the basis of relevancy.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, you see these are before us, you can ask your client what buildings were damaged, but you don't have to tell him which buildings were damaged and ask him what you tell him, is correct. He knows it is a leading question, as we all do, and he will just say yes.
MR MOLEFE: Maybe to save time, Mr Chairman, I will put it in this fashion. Besides the buildings that have been mentioned here, do you know of any other buildings that were damaged as a result of this explosion?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if he could just register his answer, his button was not on. Your last answer was, just repeat your last answer please?
MR MATHE: I said no.
MR MOLEFE: That is all Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOLEFE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. I see that it is five to one, would this be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment. We will take the lunch adjournment and resume at half past one.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe, when we adjourned for lunch, Mr Mathe had just concluded his evidence in chief?
MR MOLEFE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, is Mr Mohlaba here? Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions to ask the witness? Mr Mohlaba doesn't have a microphone before him, so just for the record, he indicated that he has no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
GEORGE MATHE: (still under oath)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOKONE: Mr Mathe, without disclosing their names, did you have any informers amongst the ranks of the police, who provided you with information pertaining to the activities of the said police?
MR MATHE: Not of any I know, myself.
MR MOKONE: So the information that you received in connection with this police, was from the community, is that correct?
MR MATHE: As I said before, I knew some of them and they are notorious.
CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence Mr Mathe, I think you mentioned only one, Mr Mphahlele.
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know any of the other persons who were targeted or about them?
MR MATHE: Well the victims, no.
CHAIRPERSON: Continue.
MR MOKONE: Can you attribute any of the bombing of the houses that belongs to the comrades, to any of the three policemen?
MR MATHE: I cannot specify but as my Attorney said, one of the policemen was interdicted by the Supreme Court to stop the bombings of the comrades' houses.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but that was another policeman, Mr Motau, that wasn't one of these that you killed.
CHAIRPERSON: The question was can you attribute any of the bombings to any of the three deceased policemen? You, yourself?
MR MATHE: I cannot specifically.
MR MOKONE: Was any policeman identified as the one who was responsible for the bombing, not necessarily by yourself?
MR MATHE: Yes, we used to sing freedom songs about them.
MR MOKONE: My question is, was any particular policeman identified as responsible for the bombing of the comrades' houses?
MR MATHE: You mean amongst the deceased?
MR MOKONE: Any policeman?
MR MATHE: Yes, in the township it was known that especially amongst the CID police, people used to say that they were seen at night, in several comrade houses' raids.
MR MOKONE: You stated earlier that the CID's were involved in political cases. I would like to put it to you that some of your political activities, were purely criminal activities, hence the involvement of the CID's. Can you comment on that?
MR MATHE: Can you specifically say which cases?
MR MOKONE: I just expect you to comment.
CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could perhaps be a bit more specific Mr Mokone, because you have said that the deceased were involved in political cases, but then you put it to him that some of that political cases were purely criminal in nature, hence their involvement.
I mean obviously there is some political cases that, although they might have been in contravention of the then law in existence, they weren't purely criminal matters like for instance belonging to the ANC at that period.
If they had investigated something like that, okay, it would be a criminal offence in the sense that it was a contravention of the legislation that was then in existence, but it was purely political. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about the nature of the type of crimes, that might help the witness answer that question.
MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Some people were assaulted, some were robbed in the name of political activities.
MR MATHE: That is right.
MR MOKONE: I repeat my question that the CID's were involved because there were some purely criminal activities in your alleged political activities? Can you comment now?
MR MATHE: What I can say is in that time, I can say everything was perceived to be criminal, everything that was, in fact everything that was against apartheid, was a crime.
MR MOKONE: I put it to you that it was the duty of this CID to investigate it if there were criminal activities involved. Will you agree with me?
MR MATHE: I do agree with you.
MR MOKONE: And hence some of these policemen were spotted investigating some of your comrades for criminal activities?
MR MATHE: As I have said, we were regarded as criminals even though we were just activists.
MR MOKONE: You said that Constable Mphahlele once arrested you. When exactly was that?
MR MATHE: I can't remember the year exactly, but it was somewhere between 1985 and 1986.
MR MOKONE: You said that he arrested you on suspicions? Of what were you suspected?
MR MATHE: At that time, there was a house which was petrol bombed in broad daylight. I am not sure from the questions that they wanted, well their interrogation, whether it was his house or one of the policemen's houses who was present during the interrogation.
There was another George whom they were looking for, of which I was picked up myself, tortured.
MR MOKONE: So as a result of this arrest, you have a grudge against Constable Mphahlele?
MR MATHE: No, it was not personal.
MR MOKONE: Do you want to tell this Committee that you did not have any hard feeling against Constable Mphahlele regardless of the assault, regardless of your incarceration for four days, without any charges laid against you, you did not have any hard feeling?
MR MATHE: If I have to put it like this, clearly I can say that I had a hard feeling against the whole system, apartheid system in general.
It was solely not personally.
MR MOKONE: Do you want to tell this Committee that it is a coincidence that after the bad treatment that you received from Constable Mphahlele, you ultimately became one of his killers, it was just a coincidence, it is not related?
MR MATHE: Like I said, that was not my first arrest. I have to put it clear in front of this Committee, that was not personal, I was only carrying out my duties.
MR MOKONE: You said that you had a list of the police you were supposed to attack.
MR MOLEFE: Correction through you, Mr Chairman. The applicant has never spoken about a list in his evidence in chief.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he didn't talk about a list as I understood it, in the sense of a list of names on a piece of paper, but he did mention that there were seven policemen who were targeted, the three deceased, was it seven, and David Motau, or was it six, Freeman and Lesley, I think, or Foreman and Lesley.
MR MOLEFE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. You mentioned names of the people that you were supposed to target. Was Constable Barney Mope one of them?
MR MATHE: Well then by then I didn't know of him, myself personally. I didn't know.
CHAIRPERSON: The question was not whether you knew him, the question was at the time of the incident, was Constable Barney Mope one of the persons listed as a target or named as a target?
MR MATHE: No, as far as I can recall.
MR MOKONE: If I understand you correctly, you killed somebody you knew nothing of because he is one of the police killed on that day?
MR MATHE: I would like to make it clear in front of this Committee, that at that time, we saw the policemen when I say we, I include even the community and especially those who were participants, we saw each and every policeman as a sell out, especially black policemen and especially those who were residing with us because we were on the other side, they were on the other side.
To me, I think that it doesn't make any difference at this moment, I mean at that moment, whether he was involved in the security, whether I knew him, but the fact that they were identified as those policemen who were there.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mathe, at the time of the shooting, at Mariana Street, were the three deceased, the policemen who were shot either by yourself or Mr Pitsi, in uniform?
MR MATHE: No, they were not.
CHAIRPERSON: So if you said you didn't know Mr Mope at all and you didn't even know that he was named as a target, who did you shoot at, who did you shoot towards?
MR MATHE: I didn't doubt the integrity of the reconnaissance which was conducted by my comrades.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you just explain, you said that you went to the scene, what did your companions tell you about the targets and who to shoot, because we have heard that there were about 10 to 12 people there, it was a shebeen and there were other people there, enjoying the services offered by the shebeen.
Now, how did you personally know who to shoot at?
MR MATHE: I was briefed about their, well the way they were sitting at that moment.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone?
MR MOKONE: Thank you Chairperson. Can you repeat your question again from the Chairperson.
MR MATHE: I said I was briefed about the way they were sitting at that moment.
MR MOKONE: When exactly were you briefed?
MR MATHE: It was after Francis and Ernest came back, after the reconnaissance.
MR MOKONE: You have just said that you perceived every policeman as an enemy, but when this question was put to Mr Pitsi, he said that not every policeman was an enemy, there were good policemen and bad policemen. What do you say about that?
MR MATHE: Myself personally, I can say that as part of the community of Atteridgeville, to me by then, every policeman was part of the system which was hated. Well I can say that by that time, one couldn't even make, I couldn't differentiate between a good man and a policeman because they were all doing the same job of - I can say that they were, well they were enforcing apartheid laws one way or the other.
MR MOKONE: Mr Pitsi is also a member of the Atteridgeville community, he is a member of the ANC, he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe that time, the same as you are a member of the Atteridgeville community, a member of the ANC and a member of Umkhonto weSizwe at that time, but you have different policies?
MR MATHE: It is not a policy.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think if someone things there were good policemen and bad policemen and somebody else thinks that all policemen were bad, that there is a conflict of policy there, it is just a person's own views, personal views.
MR MOKONE: My last question is, I put it to you that your participated in the shooting with the intention to avenge what Constable Mphahlele did to you, can you comment on that?
MR MATHE: I say no.
MR MOKONE: That is all Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOKONE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mokone. Ms Monyane, do you have any questions to ask the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MONYANE: Yes Your Honour, I have some questions to ask the applicant.
Mr Mathe, were you involved in the planning of this operation?
MR MATHE: At the planning, yes.
MS MONYANE: And Mr Pitsi said that we identified the targets and we went to our Commanders with the target. Were you also involved?
MR MATHE: I was the last subordinate in the Unit. Okay, let me put it like this in front of the Committee, militarily if I have a Commander, my Commander, I have to hear a lot of things from my Commander, so he cannot take me at any time, I mean, to meet his immediate seniors.
CHAIRPERSON: I think the question Mr Mathe was, the gist of the question was, did you yourself, identify any of the targets before the Commanders were approached?
MR MATHE: Myself?
CHAIRPERSON: Yourself, either yourself or yourself in conjunction with other members of your Unit, namely Ernest and Mr Pitsi?
MR MATHE: Can you please clarify me on this, overall targets or specifically the one?
MS MONYANE: I am speaking about these notorious policemen, which you have been, since yesterday they have been referring to these notorious policemen. I want to know that you were involved in identifying these policemen?
MR MATHE: In fact, where I used to stay by them, it was not far from the place where the attack took place, so I used to see them many, many times at that place.
CHAIRPERSON: So is your answer, what is your answer to the question, were you involved in identifying the policemen who were the targets of that attack yes or no, are you saying yes?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MS MONYANE: So now you are saying that you knew that Barney Mope, Mr Mphahlele and Mr Phenyane were the notorious police and as a result, you saw them as an obstruction to your mission and they had to be eliminated? That is what you are saying?
MR MATHE: I have said that I only knew of one policemen amongst the three deceased. I also stated that I didn't doubt the integrity especially of Ernest Ramadite who knew them very, very, very well.
When he came to us to say who was them, I just ...
MS MONYANE: You just said that you were born and bred in Atteridgeville and if you were born and bred in Atteridgeville, you must have known that these are the notorious policemen, A, B, C, D, are the notorious policemen if you were born in Atteridgeville.
In my mind, I am telling myself you cannot rely on the information given to you by somebody else.
MR MATHE: Please, I hope you will bear with me if I can say we were in a structure whereby myself, as a subordinate, in fact what used to happen was, if you were given an order, it was a matter of complying, if you have a complaint, you will complain after the order.
It was simply an order, and I was executing it myself.
CHAIRPERSON: No but I think what Ms Monyane is asking you about is, you said earlier that you were involved in the planning, so that is not just a question of executing an order if you are involved in the planning?
MR MATHE: Can you rephrase the question then.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Monyane, maybe it can help if we can take these names of the police one by one. Before that day when this police were attacked and killed, did you know Barney Mope?
MR MATHE: I have to be honest to this Commission, I knew many policemen at Atteridgeville.
ADV SANDI: Let's talk about Mr Barney Mope?
MR MATHE: I cannot specifically say - I knew them facially, most of them, not by names.
ADV SANDI: Did you know about him, did you know there was a person by the name of Barney Mope who was a policeman, harassing comrades?
MR MATHE: Yes, I knew that.
ADV SANDI: Did you know Mr Nelson Phenyane?
MR MATHE: That I didn't know.
ADV SANDI: Did you know about him?
MR MATHE: No, except that he was a policeman.
ADV SANDI: I don't know, Ms Monyane, whether this has somehow helped?
MS MONYANE: Mr Chair, I will because the applicant cannot answer that answer and give us a straight answer to that, I will leave and move to another question.
Any policemen to you, was an enemy to you because the policemen was working for the then government, is that true?
MR MATHE: Before I answer this question, I would also like to make it clear in front of this Commission, I think the aim of this Commission is for us to reach a point of reconciliation, and I don't want to find myself answering questions which may at the end of the day, open the wounds.
If I have to say to you that by then, I hope or wish that this Commission can take it into consideration, there was anger between the community, there was anger between the people who were feeling that it was too much with apartheid.
MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, this Committee is about the truth, about full disclosure, it is about also opening those wounds and we are also in a process of healing those wounds, hence some of the questions you have to answer.
I would leave that question and move to another question.
ADV DE JAGER: No but, sorry, I think you have already said you considered all policemen to be enemies because they were in the service of the State?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MS MONYANE: Has it ever occurred to you that those policemen, they were fending for their families, they had to work, even if they had to work for the apartheid government?
MR MATHE: I think in the closing, I said that I know some of them, or maybe all of them, were breadwinners, married with children. That is why I also extended my sincere sorry. I am saying sorry once again.
MS MONYANE: We have just heard now, you said that this policemen, the notorious policemen, were seen by some of the people at night, at your comrades' homes.
Mr Chairman, I think this question is going to lead me to the same question that I have asked Mr Pitsi.
CHAIRPERSON: But I think you can probably precede your question which I expect you to ask, do you know the people who said that of the people, he might not have received the information directly, he might have just heard it from his comrades?
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any informers that told your Unit that these people were notorious?
MR MATHE: I was attending meetings, we used to sing even in our freedom songs, about some of the policemen in Atteridgeville. We used to sing about them, so it was not a point of in my case, for somebody to come and tell me so, so so, is notorious, especially those known to, well, the whole community.
MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, if you knew that these police were notorious, I don't think it was going to be difficult for you to answer the question, who did what?
MR MATHE: Regarding the bombing?
MS MONYANE: Yes, the bombings?
MR MATHE: We never had access to investigate and I think if by then, we could have or if the situation was like today, whereby there is balance, I think if we could have conducted what I can call independent investigations, I think we are going to find out, really because we are convinced.
CHAIRPERSON: No but the question was, do you yourself know, you can't say well Constable Mope was involved in the bombing of a house situated at such and such a place, comrade so and so's house and Constable Phenyane was involved in a particular bombing and Mphehlele?
MR MATHE: No.
MS MONYANE: Thank you Chair. Are you going to answer that question?
CHAIRPERSON: Which one?
MS MONYANE: The question that I have just asked him, and that Mr Chair was elaborating on it?
CHAIRPERSON: The one about does he know what particular acts any of the deceased were involved in?
MS MONYANE: Yes Mr Chair.
MR MATHE: I said no.
MS MONYANE: When you were at the scene of the attack, Mr Ramadite had a hand grenade, is that correct?
MR MATHE: Ramadite.
MS MONYANE: Was that, did he throw that hand grenade?
MR MATHE: No, that was not the intention. That was not - he had the grenade in case of there can be any pursuit or unforeseeable outcomes of that operation.
CHAIRPERSON: No but the question was very simple, did he throw the grenade?
MR MATHE: No.
MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, this interdict that was done and obtained against Mr Motau, it was only Mr Motau who was interdicted, not the other policemen according to your knowledge?
MR MATHE: According to my knowledge, yes.
MS MONYANE: Why were the other policemen not included because they were also notorious, do you know?
MR MATHE: I was not on the side of the law at that time. I couldn't know what was going to happen with the others and the rest, I didn't follow that.
MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair, that is my questioning for Mr Mathe.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MONYANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Monyane. Mr Dreyer, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman. Mr Mathe, you indicated that you parted with Ernest, referring to Mr Ramadite, at the taxi range, is that correct?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: From there onwards, until you apparently met one another afterwards, you had no contact with him?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: So you were not present when he executed what he targeted himself to do and neither was he, in respect of yourself?
MR MATHE: I was not present.
MR DREYER: Now, you received two mines, you and Mr Ramadite, received two mines, if I am not mistaken from Mr Pitsi, is that correct?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: The one was a mini and the other was a super limpet?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Were you specifically given the mini limpet mine and him specifically the more serious or the other type of mine, from the outset?
MR MATHE: Yes, it was specific.
MR DREYER: And were you given that mine for any particular reason, the mini limpet mine?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Why were you given a mini limpet mine and he was given another type of mine?
MR MATHE: I was not in the commanding structure's mind. As I said, we used to comply and if there was a complaint or anything ...
MR DREYER: Okay, no I understand that, but what I am saying is, the giving of a particular explosive device to each of you, was that accompanied by a specific instruction as to what should be done to that particular mine, because that particular mine is suited to a particular type of explosion or application?
MR MATHE: Yes, in my case it was made clear.
MR DREYER: So it was made clear to you, you are being given a mini limpet mine, because you must go to Proes Street and you must put it underneath a vehicle to have this blast, not to injure someone, but to draw the attention to the presence of MK in the white community or the city areas, where apparently previously they were not that active, am I correct?
MR MATHE: You are correct, yes.
MR DREYER: And it even went further, you spontaneously gave evidence to the effect that you were strictly ordered not to involve civilians, there shouldn't be any injury to civilians in your blast?
MR MATHE: Yes, I was told to avoid civilian casualties by all means.
MR DREYER: If we take it upon that consideration that you were given the mini limpet mine to execute a specific task, would it be fair and reasonable to accept that the same applied to Mr Ramadite, that he was also then given this other type of mine and he was also given specific instructions to do what with that, would you say that is a fair inference?
MR MATHE: That I cannot answer, especially on his behalf.
ADV DE JAGER: No, but let's start there, when this mine was handed to you, was the other mine at the same time, handed to Mr Ramadite?
CHAIRPERSON: In your presence?
MR MATHE: Yes, in my presence.
CHAIRPERSON: It was handed to Ramadite in your presence?
MR MATHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You were both together when you each got the mine?
MR MATHE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you at that stage told what you should do and what you should avoid?
MR MATHE: Yes, I was.
ADV DE JAGER: In his presence, in Ramadite's presence you received these orders?
MR MATHE: Yes, the final orders.
ADV DE JAGER: Right. What was his final order given in your presence?
MR MATHE: His final orders was for him to place the mine at the intended target and he must make sure that it doesn't, he must try by all means, to avoid civilian casualties.
ADV DE JAGER: And was he told where to put the mine?
MR MATHE: As I have said, at the target which was mentioned.
ADV DE JAGER: The Juicy Lucy, what was the target, the Juicy Lucy?
MR MATHE: Yes, the target was where the soldiers usually go and eat of which it was, well, the same Juicy Lucy.
ADV DE JAGER: Was the name Juicy Lucy ever mentioned?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. You know Mr Mathe, this is astonishing to me, because every time you are requested to give particular, rather simple information about a certain thing, you seem to change your answer.
When you were questioned, or your evidence in chief was led by your own Attorney, and you were asked do you know what the instruction was given to Ernest, you said yes, he was supposed to place the mine in the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, because and then you gave a particular answer, so it was not just a blank statement.
You were even on your own accord, able to give an explanation why a particular order was given to him. When you are now questioned by the Commission, as to the specific mentioning of the name Juicy Lucy, you say yes. Surely Juicy Lucy and the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, is not the same thing? What is your comment on that? Why is there a total difference in a simple answer to a simple question?
MR MATHE: What I have to say, for my evidence I gave, I said that he was supposed to put the bomb within the vicinity of Andries and Vermeulen Street, of which he had a discretion, in fact he is the one who raised that, in case of where I have to put it, there are disturbances because he even mentioned of other places of government interest just within that vicinity.
MR DREYER: Mr Mathe, the point is that two former applicants or applicants that gave evidence prior to yourself, and which apparently served in the MK at a higher level of designation and command, gave evidence and none of those two applicants, being Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi, none of them, had anything to say about this alleged alternative target or that it was mentioned even in the passing, by Mr Ramadite, that if he fails to attract the attention or if he fails to reach the target that was intended, namely the SADF or members thereof or whatever, that he would go for any alternative target and more particularly the Ministry of Finance, Trade and Industry or whatever.
All I would like to know is, why is it that the higher levels of command, the decision making functionaries, they do no mention this to the Committee, then you come along, and suddenly you give a far more elaborate version of how there was this discussion and several other alternatives of possible targets was mentioned? How come?
MR MATHE: I have to - if I have to put it clearly, I considered even after the adjournment, they even said that, these things happened. We have to bear in mind that it was 11 years ago so it happened, it was out of their mind.
MR DREYER: Yes Mr Mathe, let me immediately put that in the correct perspective as well because I don't care what happened during the adjournment, I am not in a position to comment on that, I can only question you and I can only comment on the spontaneous evidence that was given before this Commission, and I put it to you sir, that it was a very specific issue in the evidence of Mr Pitsi as well as Mr Toka, that the whole and the primary object of this whole bomb blast that occurred in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, was solely directed against members of the SADF that purportedly frequented that particular venue, namely the Juicy Lucy.
There was absolutely no indication, no indication of alternative targets. In fact, Mr Pitsi even said that if Mr Ramadite went along and he at the scene decided to place the bomb somewhere else, it was then the result of his own accord and not because that was the order.
All I am saying is what you have to tell us now, is a totally different story, it is simply a totally different story than the version of the two gentlemen that I have just referred to.
It is astonishing to me that an operative on your level, you have all this information, you make mention of alternative targets, and if I am not mistaken, on a question of the Commission whether or not you knew, or you got to know at some stage that there was a ratification by the command in Lusaka or Botswana, also of these alternative targets, if the primary target is not to be reached, you said yes, if I am not mistaken. You can correct me if I am wrong.
MR MATHE: No, I never said that.
MR DREYER: All right, I will leave it at that.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Dreyer, kindly ask a shorter question. I think he will not be able to answer all the questions you have involved in this long paragraph.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question Mr Mathe entails the fact that I have given back to you your version of what transpired at the discussion, what instructions were given and I am putting it to you that that is a totally different story, which was relayed to this Commission by the two more senior members, Mr Pitsi and Mr Toka. Can you give any explanation why that is so?
MR MATHE: Mr Chairman, I think before I ...(indistinct) this Commission, I made an oath that I will say the truth and nothing but the truth, so what I've said is the truth.
MR DREYER: Yes.
ADV SANDI: Would it not be better, Mr Dreyer, if you point out the specific differences and contradictions between his version and the versions of previous witnesses?
ADV DE JAGER: I think then we'll be here until next week.
MR DREYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Mathe, lets just dwell a little bit more on the difference. It was put to you by the Commission that there are clearly four corners to this particular intersection of Vermeulen and Andries Street, and you were questioned whether or not there was a specific instruction to Mr Ramadite to place this particular explosive device at a particular venue, and your answer to that was there was no particular place, he had the discretion to decide.
Now that once again, Sir, is a total different story than the version given by Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi in regard to the order and the instruction that was given to Mr Ramadite, and according to them whatever order was given to him, Sir, was ratified by either the Botswana or the Lusaka commanding hierarchy. So the question is simple, why, why do they present a version to this Commission very clearly, very simply; that that was the instruction and on that instruction we gained ratification from the higher echelons of the command.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)
MR DREYER: Why is that, Mr Mathe?
MR MOLEFE: With due respect, Mr Chairman, before my client answers this question I just want to place it on record that I disagree with my learned friend that there was a contradiction there. I think we've spent a lot of time with Mr Toka for instance, finding out, was Mr Ramadite told to go and specifically place this bomb at Juicy Lucy or not. We even went into describing how Juicy Lucy was and I don't think his answer was that it was supposed to be, he was instructed to specifically place it at Juicy Lucy.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but my understanding, Mr Molefe was, through the evidence of both Mr Pitsi and Mr Toka, that the targeted area was that corner of the intersection near where Juicy Lucy is at least. Now what Mr Dreyer is putting to the witness is that in his evidence-in-chief he said that Ramadite had the discretion to place it anywhere in that intersection, in any of the four corners, it could have diagonally across the street and nowhere near Juicy Lucy. So maybe if you can answer that.
MR MATHE: But in my evidence I think I've stated that he was given an order to place the limpet-mine where the soldiers ...(indistinct) frequent the place, of which in my leading evidence, I never mentioned Juicy Lucy, but I've said of a place where those soldiers ...(indistinct) frequent.
MR DREYER: I've taken note of your answer. I'll leave that for argument, let's just get ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: And when I questioned you I asked you whether the names Juicy Lucy was ever mentioned and you said yes.
CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't in-chief, that was ...
ADV DE JAGER: A few moments ago, ja, a moment or two ago.
MR MATHE: I said yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
MR DREYER: So once again, Mr Mathe, I put it to you, you tend to amend your evidence as you go along, and I'll leave that for argument.
To make quite sure that we do not misunderstand one another, did you yourself personally overhear an instruction given or a concession made by either Mr Toka or Mr Pitsi to Mr Ramadite that if he cannot attain the primary goal of setting this explosive device at Juicy Lucy in order to be effective against SADF members, that he is allowed to place it anywhere in that vicinity because of the simple fact that there are also government buildings there, and more particularly, this Ministry of Finance, Industry and that? Did you hear either a direct command to that effect, that he's allowed to do so or that any one of the two of them conceded that if he is not in a position to attain the primary goal, that he may use his own discretion? Did you ever overhear anything of that kind?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now can you ...(intervention)
MR MATHE: I say yes.
MR DREYER: Yes, your answer is yes. Now can you give any indication, Sir, why on a crucial type of matter like that, an order, why would neither Mr Toka nor Mr Pitsi relay that to this Commission because, and I will tell you why I consider it to be important, because both those two members or applicants apply for amnesty on the very basis that they were not specifically involved in any act, but because of their involvement in the chain of command. So obviously to the two of them, the commands or the orders given were important, do you agree with me?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: It was important to them.
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Now we're ad idem on that basis, if that was so important for them in their capacity as the people, the decision-makers, the people who gave the orders, why did not one of the two of them mention this alternative target at all to this Commission, why? Can you give any reason?
MR MATHE: I think what I'm trying to disclose here is the truth and if maybe it slipped off their minds or they'd forgotten after 11 years, so I'm saying what I heard.
MR DREYER: Yes, Mr Mathe, you were also questioned by one of the Members of the Commission in respect of the involvement or the importance of the Finance Trade and Industry building in that vicinity and in response thereto you made the following statement at a stage in your answer, that if the original target cannot be reached, you must find, the operative must find an alternative target. Do you remember that you said that?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: Do you remember that you also testified, Sir, that when the two explosive devices were given to you and Mr Ramadite respectively, that they were not armed, they were still not armed, the explosive device was unarmed, am I correct? So it was within the two of you's discretion either to arm or not to arm, am I correct?
MR MATHE: You're correct.
MR DREYER: Ja. Now why, Sir, do you say that once you can't achieve the primary goal, that you must find an alternative target, why is that so?
MR MATHE: I've - let me bring it to the attention of the Commission that with weapons like limpet-mines, anywhere there is no way a person can come with a limpet-mine and just activate it in front of the people. Usually it happens at a distance before well, the target. If I'm having the limpet-mine I won't pull out the pin at the target, I'll obviously pull it before I reach the target, then leave the mine there and go. So in this case, what I can say is if I've already pulled the pin and the target is not as I expected the situation to be, I'll automatically have to move away from the mine.
MR DREYER: Yes, I agree with you totally, Mr Mathe, but the problem that I have with the whole construction of your argument is, why then do you still proceed with that armed explosive device and place it at a particular location where it has a far higher risk of injuring or killing innocent people that's got absolutely no relation to the primary target, the SADF?
MR MATHE: Come again?
MR DREYER: I'll repeat that. You said come again, I'll repeat it again.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Dreyer, which land-mine are you referring to now, are you talking about the one that was placed at the vehicle?
CHAIRPERSON: He's just talking in theory now, saying that -I think what the question is, Mr Mathe, what Mr Dreyer is trying to get across to you is that you say that; okay, I've got my target, I'm going to put this limpet-mine at spot X, and before you get to spot X, you arm it, you pull the pin and then you come around the corner and you see spot X is impossible for you to place the bomb there because there's something unexpected, as you put it, there. You then say that you must then find an alternative target because the bomb is now ticking away, and you put it on an alternative target. Now Mr Dreyer is saying; well if that is the case, then why put it in such a place where innocent people who have got no connection with the original target, namely Defence Force personnel, may get injured? Was that the question?
MR DREYER: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: That is what Mr Dreyer is asking.
MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, this particular question that my learned friend is directing to the applicant now, it's almost similar to a question that I tried to put to the applicant during his evidence-in-chief. My learned friend objected on the basis that Mr Mathe was not there when Mr Ramadite put that limpet-mine and he therefore cannot comment. And I say he must therefore not ask that question to Mr Mathe.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think any answer that Mr Mathe might give will convince the Commission that Ramadite thought in the same way.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, not in the slightest way did I connect this question that I've put to the applicant, to the conduct of the way of thinking of Mr Ramadite. I was putting a hypothetical statement to him, if on the basis that he has explained that he has to find an alternative and he's now faced with an armed explosive device and he has now, of his being put in a situation where he must find an alternative way to get rid of this. All I said, is it then fair to take this explosive device and put it at a point where there is a totally higher risk to unsuspected and ...
CHAIRPERSON: I agree with Mr Molefe, it's going to get us nowhere, whatever his answer is on this aspect because he had one bomb, he put it on the bomb(sic) and blew up the motorcar. You know, whether he says yes, it's fair or no, it's unfair, I can't see how it's going to assist us at all in our investigation here.
MR DREYER: I'll leave it at that, Mr Chairman.
Mr Mathe, were you present - I made a note that I was busy making the note when you gave your evidence and I hadn't completed it at that stage so I just want to make sure, did you ever attend a meeting or were you ever present when anyone gave the impression that the Botswana or Lusaka command ratified the setting of the limpet-mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, not only because of the possible presence of South African Defence Force members, but also because of the presence of other government buildings? Have you specifically heard from anyone that such ratification has been given by the command in Botswana or Lusaka?
MR MATHE: No, not specifically.
MR DREYER: Oh.
ADV DE JAGER: Ratification in the sense of afterwards or before the explosion?
MR DREYER: Ratification, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) after the explosion in fact.
MR DREYER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR MATHE: About Botswana, in fact we never as I've said, as a ...(indistinct) subordinate, I only knew of my immediate commanders, about Botswana who I was totally not in the picture.
MR DREYER: Right. And then just to put that in the correct perspective. If I understand you correctly, even prior to the explosion there was a discussion between Mr Ramadite, Pitsi, Toka whoever, his commanding officer or commanding superior prior to the explosion, that it's quite alright, if he can't succeed in setting the bomb in a location where it would be directed against SADF members, he must still place it in that vicinity because in any case there are other buildings, state buildings. If I understand your evidence correctly you overheard that, it was discussed in your presence and it was okayed by the commanding superiors?
MR MATHE: My immediate commanders.
MR DREYER: Ja. That is how I understood your evidence.
MR MATHE: Come again with your question.
MR DREYER: I've now just asked you, Sir, have you ever heard subsequent to the bomb blast from anyone that subsequent to the bomb blast because no SADF members were injured or whatever, the Botswana or Lusaka command said; we ratify this, we say it's alright, this bomb blast because in any case there were other buildings, state buildings in the vicinity. You said no, you don't know, alright? Now I want to know, I just want to make sure that prior to the explosion when there was the discussion and the instructions were given to you and Mr Ramadite to go on your each and everyone of your way and do the specific task that you were charged with, did you definitely, you yourself personally overhear either Mr Toka or Mr Pitsi saying to Mr Ramadite; listen yes, if you go there and you can't attain your primary goal of setting this device at a place where it will affect members of the SADF, you may still place it anywhere there at your discretion because in any case there is state and government buildings in that vicinity? Did you ever hear that, because that is the impression I got from ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just let him give the answer.
MR MATHE: Well I said that after Ernest came with that, I mean whereby he wanted to use his discretion in case of well there'll be any ...(indistinct) for him to execute, the order, what I heard was he was told to use his own discretion. And I've said that Ernest was more familiar with Pretoria of which after that I've never heard anymore thing ...(indistinct).
MR DREYER: ...(inaudible) just follow that up, Sir. One of the members of the Commission specifically asked you whether Mr Pitsi was present when this discussion took place about the Finance Trade & Industry building as an alternative target and you said yes, am I correct?
MR MATHE: I said yes.
MR DREYER: Yes. Then lastly, Mr Mathe, do you have an idea what happened to Mr Ramadite, what is his current whereabouts, do you know?
MR MATHE: Mr Ramadite I last saw him at the weekend but the mother told me that he will be admitted at the mental asylum because he's like he's having a relapse.
MR DREYER: I see. Now at the time when you together with some of the other applicants were charged criminally, was Mr Ramadite also charged?
MR MATHE: Yes, he was.
MR DREYER: And at the time of that appearance, prior to the escape by some of the applicants, was he still fit and sound in his mind?
MR MATHE: I grew up with Ernest Ramadite. Immediately after - because what happened after our arrest, we were placed under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act which simply solitary confinement for six months and two weeks but after we were released from Section 29 to face all these charges, it's when I saw a change in him. I saw that he was no longer the same Ernest I knew. Well, to me it's when I realised the change but we never had any counselling to this date.
MR DREYER: Alright, okay. Then, Mr Mathe, just one thing, you said that Ernest told you, subsequent to the bomb blast he told you something about a bomb blast in which he was involved, explaining everything or nothing or whatever, I just wanted to know, was this immediately after the blast that you had a prior arrangement that you would meet one another at a certain place or was it some time after that?
MR MATHE: Immediately we met.
MR DREYER: And did he at that stage give you any indication that he could not set the limpet-mine at the place which he had in mind?
MR MATHE: What he told me was that he will explain everything to the commanders but he wished that the mine doesn't injure civilians, because of it was placed under the flower box. That's what he told me.
MR DREYER: He placed it where?
MR MATHE: In the flower box.
MR DREYER: In the flower box?
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: That's all he told you?
MR MATHE: That's all he told me.
MR DREYER: So he never indicated to you that he had to set it at another place other than he initially intended to?
MR MATHE: No, he never mentioned that to me.
MR DREYER: So for all we knew from the outset that is where he wanted to put the limpet-mine because he didn't indicate anything to the contrary to you?
MR MATHE: You want to know if he is ...(intervention)
MR DREYER: What I'm saying is, he never indicated to you; Mr Mathe, you know there was a change of plan, I had to take an alternative to the original order or plan because I couldn't set the bomb or the limpet-mine where I wanted to put it?
MR MATHE: No.
MR DREYER: He never indicated that to you?
MR MATHE: No, he never.
MR DREYER: You also mentioned that he was much more acquainted with the Pretoria area than yourself.
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: And you also indicated that he was given the right of way to use his discretion as to where to put the limpet-mine.
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: And that happened at the same time when you were given your orders.
MR MATHE: Yes.
MR DREYER: So when he left together with yourself and in his possession was this explosive device, he already had an order together with a mandate that he may use his own discretion?
MR MATHE: But it was stressed several times that he must deliberate the mine at the intended target.
MR DREYER: It was stressed several times?
MR MATHE: Yes, he must by all means try because there was always an alternative. I mean in case of things don't work the way one expects.
MR DREYER: I see. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dreyer. Mr Joubert, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?
MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, do you have any questions?
MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson, save to say that I've consulted with Ms Penyane and Ms Tickey Maleka who were also affected in the incident of the policemen. Initially I said that Ms Maleka will give evidence and she's now accepted the view of the applicants, that they may have been injured by mistake and therefore she will no longer give evidence.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that information, Ms Mtanga.
Mr Molefe, do you have any re-examination?
MR MOLEFE: None, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions?
ADV DE JAGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?
ADV SANDI: None.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mathe, you may stand down. That concludes your testimony.
MR MATHE: Thanks.
WITNESS EXCUSED
