MR KOOPEDI: As the Committee pleases and may I at the same time request leave to call in the second applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will first excuse Mr Mazibuko and then are you calling Mr Tlatsi?
MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, won't you just move the microphone to Mr Tlatsi. Can you remain standing, Mr Tlatsi. Are you also going to testify in English?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Are your full names Teboho Bennie Tlatsi?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
TEBOHO BENNIE TLATSI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Mr Koopedi?
EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Tlatsi, is it correct that you are a co-applicant in this amnesty application?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is correct.
MR KOOPEDI: Now, there is a Unit which was called Basil February Unit, is it correct that you were a member thereof?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is correct.
MR KOOPEDI: This is in terms of the submission written by your co-applicant. Now, did you have an opportunity to go through this submission?
MR TLATSI: Yes, I did.
MR KOOPEDI: Would I be correct to say that in fact when this submission was drawn up, you were party thereto?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.
MR KOOPEDI: And is it then correct to say everything or things that appear in this submission, should also be read into your application as if specifically handed in for your separate application?
MR TLATSI: It is true.
MR KOOPEDI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You confirm that the contents of the submission, Exhibit A is correct?
MR TLATSI: Yes, I do confirm.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.
MR KOOPEDI: Now, is it also correct that the first applicant, Mr Mazibuko was your Commander in the Basil February Unit?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.
MR KOOPEDI: Now looking at your application form, you are applying for amnesty for one incident.
MR TLATSI: Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: And the incident is the attack at the Administration offices?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is true.
MR KOOPEDI: Now is it also your wish that in as far as your involvement is concerned, that is referring to all the activities of the Basil February Unit, that you be given amnesty?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it is my wish.
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, on that breath, we would request that the application for this present applicant be amended so as to include the other offences that the first applicant has applied amnesty for, the reason simply being that he was involved as a Unit member in the planning of these operations, although in his application form, he has only referred to the one incident where he actually took active part.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Now as it stands at present, does his application only explicitly refer to the kwaThema Administration offices incident?
MR KOOPEDI: That is how the application form stands.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you are applying for his application to incorporate all of the incidents that appear on page 3 of Exhibit A?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes? Very well, I assume there is no objection to that Ms Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: I have no objection, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you refer to these other instances at all in your application?
MR TLATSI: No, I didn't sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there reference to the fact that you were part or a member of an Umkhonto weSizwe Unit in your application?
MR TLATSI: Yes, there is. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We have noted the application to incorporate the other incidents. We will deal with that when we deal with deciding the matter, but proceed in the meantime and present his case.
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, we are indebted. Now, I would ask you to concentrate on the operation that involves you as in where you took part, the attack at the Administration offices, please briefly tell the Committee, this Honourable Committee, what happened on that day and how you went about it.
MR TLATSI: It was on the 20th of October 1988 and there were local government elections, I think it was all over the country, specifically in kwaThema. There was a call by the broad democratic movement, UDF, that people should refrain from voting for illegitimate Councillors at that time. As a Unit, Basil February, we decided to disrupt those elections because we felt they were illegitimate. What happened, we took a super limpet mine, myself and Veli, to kwaThema and that is where we actually planned this meeting, this incident. After a while, because he was writing examinations, he went to write his examinations and I went to the target, which was the kwaThema Administration offices. This limpet mine was intended to be placed inside the Administration offices but because there was a heavy Police contingent on those premises, I decided to place it on the toilet which were inside the building, very close to where I was supposed initially, to place it. I want to clarify this that it was already in the afternoon, and most people who were voting, were - actually the voting was about to be finished at that time, but those elections were continuing the following day. In order to scare off the voters, that is why we decided to place it in the afternoon, when the voting was finished and trying to minimise casualties. I placed it in the toilets and then it exploded after 30 to 40 minutes.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you know if anyone was injured in this explosion?
MR TLATSI: No, I do not know whether people were injured.
MR KOOPEDI: In the criminal trial that ensued, did anything come out to the effect that there were people injured during that explosion?
MR TLATSI: No.
MR KOOPEDI: No such thing occurred?
MR TLATSI: No.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you regard this activity as having been politically motivated?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it was.
MR KOOPEDI: And that you had a political objective to carry through?
MR TLATSI: Yes, it was.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you think there was any personal gain on your side, did you gain anything out of it, personally?
MR TLATSI: No, I did not.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay, and have you told this Committee all there is to tell about this incident?
MR TLATSI: Yes, I think so far I have told everything.
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the applicant's case.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Any questions Ms
Mtanga?
MS MTANGA: No questions Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tlatsi, are you aware of the other incidents that are referred to on page 3 of Exhibit A?
MR TLATSI: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you gain knowledge of those incidents?
MR TLATSI: We planned them together as a Unit, Basil February.
CHAIRPERSON: kwaThema Administration offices was the only one that you personally executed?
MR TLATSI: Yes, I personally executed that.
CHAIRPERSON: Were the others executed by other members of your Unit?
MR TLATSI: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: The others were executed by other members of your Unit?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But you were aware of them?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you are aware that they were being executed?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: My attention has just been drawn to the fact that you were charged at the trial with all of these incidents which are referred to in Exhibit A, is that correct?
MR TLATSI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened in that trial, what happened, were you convicted of these things or what happened?
MR TLATSI: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: What happened in the trial, were you convicted of all these incidents or not?
MR TLATSI: No, we got indemnity. Sorry, there is something I want to clarify, this attack at kwaThema Administration was not part and parcel of that case we attended.
CHAIRPERSON: So were you never charged with the kwaThema attack?
MR TLATSI: No.
CHAIRPERSON: But you were charged with some other attacks including these ones that are referred to in Exhibit A?
MR TLATSI: That is correct. That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And did that case ever go to court and was there ever a court case?
MR TLATSI: Yes, there was a court case.
CHAIRPERSON: What happened in that court case, were you found guilty or was it never completed?
MR TLATSI: It was never completed, it was just after the release of Mandela and we got indemnity.
CHAIRPERSON: The court case started off, there were witnesses that came and gave evidence?
MR TLATSI: Yes, there were.
CHAIRPERSON: But before it could be finalised, you were granted indemnity?
MR TLATSI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Are there other questions? Any re-examination Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for Mr Tlatsi?
MR KOOPEDI: That is his evidence, Chairperson, although I would like to call a witness who is going to be very short.
CHAIRPERSON: In respect of both the applicants?
MR KOOPEDI: In respect of both applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Tlatsi, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, the witness I am calling, his name is Ernest Sigasa. He is being referred to in this application.
CHAIRPERSON: Ernest who?
MR KOOPEDI: Sigasa.
CHAIRPERSON: Sigasa.
MR KOOPEDI: Sigasa.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sigasa, are your full names Ernest Sigasa?
MR SIGASA: Yes, Ernest Phumuzi Sigasa.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just give the second name, would you just spell your second name.
MR SIGASA: Phumuzi.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please sit down. Mr Koopedi?
EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Sigasa, you have fortunately been following the evidence that has been given in this hearing, is that correct?
MR SIGASA: Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: It has been said that you gave training and you were in command so to speak of the Basil February Unit, would that be correct?
MR SIGASA: Yes, it fell under our command structure.
MR KOOPEDI: You have also been referred to as having formed the Regional Command in the East Rand, would that be correct?
MR SIGASA: That is correct.
MR KOOPEDI: And a Unit has been mentioned here, the Johannes Nkosi Unit, were you a member thereof?
MR SIGASA: That is correct, yes.
MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that in fact you have applied for amnesty and have appeared for the incidents as carried by your Unit and in that application, you have referred to this application?
MR SIGASA: That is correct.
MR KOOPEDI: Now, for this Committee's sake would you briefly detail the mandate that could have, that you gave or that you could have given to the Basil February Unit and how you got the powers you know, to be giving people mandates.
MR SIGASA: Well firstly, I think my fellow applicant, Veli Mazibuko elaborated very broadly with regard to the mandate and the modus operandi when it comes to the ANC cadres, because we were not a conventional army, but a guerrilla movement, we were given basically a broad mandate and as I went through their submission and so on, I realised that part of the mandate that was given, it is in fact reflected in their submission as well. So basically what they would do, they were given as Umkhonto weSizwe broadly, overall and each front command like Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and so on, will take that as an overall command and so on, that would cascade into our Operational Units and so on, and in this case as well, the Basil February Unit derived their mandate from ourselves as the Regional Command Structure.
MR KOOPEDI: Did the Basil February Unit report to you in terms of their activities and actions, did they come and report what they had done?
MR SIGASA: I would - what I would say is that in all our Units, including Basil February as well, we had a particular modus operandi like in terms of making sure that people act within the parameters of the policy and also the mandate given, we had that contact where people would in fact sit and go through the mandate itself and also get some reports back, the ammunitions used, the target you know, actions carried on and so on and so forth. I would say yes, we consistently or constantly had some report backs about the activities of the Unit.
MR KOOPEDI: Now, in turn, what did you do with those reports, did you keep them, did you pass them anywhere else, what did you do with it?
MR SIGASA: Well, definitely as a Command Structure responsible and accountable to the front command, the Military Headquarters in Lusaka, so that the ANC would be able to account for the activities taking place. Of course others, it was difficult to pass them over to the Headquarters, but most and in fact all of the operations or activities and so on, were passed over to the MHQ.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay, finally, would you regard the activities, the operations of the Basil February Unit as operations of the ANC?
MR SIGASA: Well, of course, of course, we regard that because when we look at in fact our mandate, when we look at the 25th advisory from Umkhonto weSizwe, the attack, annihilation of the enemy forces, the infrastructure of the enemy, the lines of communication and so on, all that formed part of the broad mandate that was given to all of us, and that would include Basil February as well. So that, yes, was in fact the activities as sanctioned by the ANC.
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, that concludes this witness' testimony.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, any questions?
MS MTANGA: No questions, Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Any questions from the Panel?
ADV DE JAGER: And even today you are satisfied that they acted within their broad mandate?
MR SIGASA: Even today, yes, I am satisfied that they acted within the broad mandate, despite an extreme provocation and so on, but they tried their level-best to be disciplined members of the Unit.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicants?
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the case for the applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sigasa, you are excused. Thank you.
MR SIGASA: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, any witnesses, any evidence?
MS MTANGA: I won't be calling any witnesses Chairperson and no further evidence from my side.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, have you got any submissions?
MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Very short verbal submission, Chairperson. Chairperson, I would request on behalf of the applicants that they be granted amnesty for the offences having been mentioned. The reason is simply that the applicants have fully disclosed to this Honourable Committee all their offences and in their evidence, the applicants have made it clear that there was no personal gain on their side and finally, that all their activities, there was a political objective. These people were acting within the mandate of a political organisation, namely the ANC. Briefly it is on those grounds that I ask that they be granted amnesty, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, any submissions?
MS MTANGA: Chairperson, I am not opposing this application and I will therefore not make any submission, I will leave the matter in your hands.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Mtanga. Just in regard to the application to amend Mr Tlatsi's amnesty application, to include the other incidents which appear in Exhibit A, has in your submission, has provision been made sufficiently in the application in order to cover the incidents, the further incidents referred to in Exhibit A, or would it amount to us allowing Mr Tlatsi to raise completely new matters which had not been alluded to at all in the original application?
MR KOOPEDI: The answer is no Chairperson, the application was simply based on the fact that Mr Tlatsi was present during certain planning meetings and in as far as that is concerned, he asks for amnesty and that is why there is that application that those offences be read into his application. There is no new or further facts that are going to be brought about or that are coming.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in other words the question is, is the original application broad enough to cover the further incidents and if so, which particular portion or aspect of the original application, would make sufficient provision for these further incidents also to be included, in addition to the kwaThema Administration office attack?
MR KOOPEDI: In the application that is not clear, that is the original application form. The original application form gives the impression that there is only one offence that he is applying amnesty for and which would be the attack at the kwaThema Administration office.
CHAIRPERSON: But is there reference in the original application to the activities of the Unit, the Basil February Unit and the fact that the applicant was a member of that particular Unit?
MR KOOPEDI: That doesn't appear on the application form.
CHAIRPERSON: As it appears from the evidence, from the testimony of Mr Tlatsi, he seems to have been charged with these further incidents that are referred to in Exhibit A, now does that assist him at all in laying some basis for the application to amend, because of course you realise the difficulty if there is absolutely no basis at all in the original application, then of course you know, it is incompetent for us to entertain incidents and acts which have not been raised at all in the application.
MR KOOPEDI: I understand the dilemma if I may call it that, Chairperson, the fact is on the original application form and like I have mentioned, the applicant only centres on the attack at the kwaThema Administration office. He does at some stage mention that he was charged criminally and the question would be, that is on page 14 going to page 15, and there is a question was there a prosecution, and if so, in what court. He goes on to explain that it was in the Pretoria Regional Court. He also goes on to state what charges was he facing and it is my submission that the ten counts that he is referring to in his application here, would incorporate those that appear on Exhibit A, but the fact is other than that, there has been no specific reference so as, specific reference to the other matters which we apply that they be incorporated, but he does as I have said, refer to the ten counts that he was charged with.
ADV GCABASHE : Mr Koopedi, are you saying that that is sufficient to grant him leave to now amend a rather substantive portion of his application?
MR KOOPEDI: I have said that I did not think that that is sufficient, but in response to the Honourable Chairperson's question, I thought it would be fair to mention to this Committee, to state to this Committee that it has been mentioned, you know, in some far fetched way so to speak, that is he refers to him having been charged. You look at the charges, the charges refer to those offences, but he did not specifically refer to those matters in his application.
ADV GCABASHE : Were further particulars either requested or supplied at any stage?
MR KOOPEDI: To my knowledge, no further particulars were requested, but further particulars were supplied without being requested, if you look at Exhibit A and if Exhibit A is seen to be you know, part of his application.
ADV GCABASHE : Yes, but Exhibit A is a 1999 document I presume? One other question, the indemnity that the applicants got, what is the effect of that, what do you understand the effect to be?
MR KOOPEDI: Well, the effect of that is that they will not be criminally charged for this matter any more, nor even be civilly, you know be civilly charged or face any civil action for this matter, nor will most probably the organisation that they represent.
ADV GCABASHE : And their reason for applying for amnesty in respect of the very same offences?
MR KOOPEDI: Well, by and large the reason for applying for amnesty is two-fold. The first one is to ensure that all the truth has been told about the activities of the past, and I would imagine a Unit like theirs would also want to form a part of the history, the recorded history and that is the first reason. The second reason would be I am not sure, but I believe the second reason would be to make sure that the organisation that they are members of, the ANC, would not in any way face any civil suits because the indemnity that they were granted was in a certain sense silent on that issue.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I am just going to intervene for a moment, Mr Koopedi, we will come back to you in a minute. Mr Bizos, you are still present unfortunately I see, for you. Have you got anything that you wanted to bring to our attention?
MR BIZOS: ... whether or not Adv De Jager should continue being a Member of the Panel, he said he has no problem with that. I just thought that I would indicate that so that you don't have to reconstitute the Panel for the adjourned date. Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we appreciate that Mr Bizos, thank you very much. Yes of course, thank you. Mr Koopedi, who has completed the application form of Mr Tlatsi, I see it is a hand-written application form?
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I am going to have to enquire from him, I have no idea. May I do so Chairperson? I am informed that he completed the application form personally and then handed it over.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I understand ...
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, are you satisfied that the indemnity being granted, that he wouldn't be liable to prosecution any more and that the reason for applying now for amnesty was actually to put the whole background and record and background and what they did, on record sort of?
MR KOOPEDI: Honourable Committee Member, yes, I am satisfied and perhaps I should refer to the fact that there was a criminal trial in this matter, which incorporated all these allegations or offences, indemnity was granted with regard to them, and that criminal trial was stopped. I am satisfied that, I do not think that any criminal charges can arise out of any of these activities.
ADV DE JAGER: Neither civil claims?
MR KOOPEDI: Well civil claims I believe personally, yes, he would not be liable if he has been given indemnity, I am just not sure as to whether the organisation for which he acted, enjoys the same status in terms of the indemnity. I would know that if he is granted amnesty, then his organisation would also enjoy that status of not being civilly liable.
ADV DE JAGER: I think in fact, because I think the government, the then government wouldn't be personally liable at this stage too if they had granted amnesty to say a Policeman or indemnity to anybody, I think it was on the same basis.
MR KOOPEDI: May I also say Chairperson that the - this application that these offences be incorporated, is not material to this application in that the big purpose, the purpose which it would serve, has already been covered by the fact that a fellow applicant has made application for these offences. Without prejudging the matter, but if he was, if the first applicant is to be denied amnesty, it goes without saying that the organisation for which he was acting for, would be liable, similarly if the first applicant is granted amnesty on those actions, and supposing the second applicant is not granted amnesty on that, that organisation will still be covered civilly because a member of it has been granted amnesty for those offences and what I am saying is that the application is not material to this application, but we thought it would be proper to have him present the entire picture, have him own up for having been part of a Unit that was involved in the planning of all these operations.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, technically one might, if lawyers look at the matter, you might conclude that yes, well, there was an offence involved in planning, being part of the Unit, but if an applicant in person prepares his application form, then it is more likely that he would deal with those matters which he himself has actually committed. So that I mean an applicant in person won't look at this matter in a technical way as lawyers would look at it and say, well, you know, although you haven't gone out to place a limpet mine there, you could actually be charged, it could be said that you had committed an offence, you know, there could be a question of common purpose or whatever, whatever technical sort of argument there might be, so one understands it.
If the applicant prepares the application in person, that he would obviously focus on the issue where he was involved, but I mean strictly speaking, there can't, it is very hard, let me put it this way, it is very hard to think of personal prejudice that might affect the applicant if for example he is not, no amnesty is granted in respect of these other incidents which he hasn't specifically dealt with in his application form. If the criminal liability is taken care of, you have quite correctly referred to the other aspects and so on. It looks as if there is no real prejudice.
MR KOOPEDI: I concede that there wouldn't be any prejudice whatsoever in my own thinking.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, I assume you wouldn't have any further submissions.
MR KOOPEDI: No further submissions, thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON: Well, that concludes this particular matter. The Panel will consider the matter and will make a decision on it and will notify all of the interested parties once a decision is available. We will reserve the decision in the matter.
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You would be excused Mr Koopedi. Ms Mtanga, is there anything else that we have on the roll?
MS MTANGA: No, this is all for today Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, under those circumstances, we are going to adjourn the proceedings in any case. We will reconvene in this venue on coming Monday morning and the proceedings will commence at ten o'clock. We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
