CHAIRPERSON: We are now continuing the applications of Mr Maesela and Mr Tekane.
Mr Maesela, I remind you that you are still under oath to tell the truth, do you understand?
MR MAESELA: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard, any further questions?
MR RICHARD: Yes Chairperson. Before I commence, I might report that I have located ten boxes of the record in the State Archives. Unfortunately in Johannesburg in their repository there, to get the records here this morning would require a subpoena from the Commission itself because States Archives, being what they are, they are not willing to hand them simply to me on my say so.
The record is as I've indicated very lengthy and in fact there are more than one trial involved and I simply place on record that the records are available contrary to other indications. Subject to that, I proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Richard, we've noted that.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: It does handicap my cross-examination, but we will proceed.
Mr Maesela, from your evidence yesterday it appears that you were an ANC member and a member of the MK structures, is that correct?
MR MAESELA: I was member of the ANC under the structures of the SDUs.
MR RICHARD: Now would you please outline to us what other activities did you indulge in on behalf of the ANC besides the SDU activity?
MR MAESELA: Besides the activities of the SDU there was nothing in particular that I was involved in on behalf of the ANC.
MR RICHARD: So would it not be correct to assume that you were in contact with various ANC leaders, activists, politicians? 1993 was a time of intense political activity, it was a lead up to what happened in 1994?
MR MAESELA: I don't understand when you say in contact?
MR RICHARD: There was communication between you and other members of the ANC in Rockville where you lived?
MR MAESELA: At the time of the ANC then save to say maybe on social occasions, yes there was contact.
MR RICHARD: Now it's also common cause ex your own evidence that you're an educated person and I would assume that you read the newspapers and were fully aware of what was going on in Soweto, Rockville, at the time?
MR MAESELA: Yes Sir.
MR RICHARD: Now yesterday I questioned you on what you saw as a legitimate target. Now would you say an attack on the police was part and parcel of the armed struggle?
MR MAESELA: Yes it was.
MR RICHARD: Now are you aware that as at February 1993 the armed struggle had been suspended.
MR MAESELA: The armed struggle was suspended in 1990 but because of the events preceding the suspension of the armed struggle, it became imperative upon the African National Congress to do something in respect to the protection of innocent people who were being killed by the State apparatus.
MR RICHARD: Now you say it became imperative that the ANC did something. Who communicated that to you?
MR MAESELA: It was not communicated to me directly but it was a collective decision taken by the leadership of the African National Congress to use those who were more experienced in the MK to train members of the community.
MR RICHARD: What collective decision, who was part of that?
MR MAESELA: The leadership, members of the ANC.
MR RICHARD: Now you say you were aware of this, how was this communicated to you?
MR MAESELA: To different structures of the MK down the line, their were links. As I said Molefeng Msini was the one who recruited me into these structures and introduced me to Mr Ephrahim Opanari who was among those who were the leaders in the MK.
MR RICHARD: Now that was in 1991 two years before the incident under discussion?
MR MAESELA: Yes, yes Sir.
MR RICHARD: Now, as you might well concede, you are aware that between 1991 and 1993 the late Chris Hani made various decisions about the armed struggle and together with his leadership group. Yes or no?
MR MAESELA: Mr Richard, can you please clarify as to namely what kind of decisions were made?
MR RICHARD: During 1990 as you've said the armed struggle was suspended, is that correct??
MR MAESELA: Yes.
MR RICHARD: My next question is, are you aware of any statements by Chris Hani post 1991?
MR MAESELA: As we all know that Mr Chris Hani, the late Comrade Commander Chris Hani, was very shall I use the word militant person and he was directly involved in the setting up or rather the formation of SDUs.
MR RICHARD: And what was his attitude post 1991 to the armed struggle.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Richard, can you just assist me here? Are you challenging the establishment of the SDU movement by the ANC leadership? Just help me here? Or are you asking this particular applicant where he fitted into the whole structure? I'm not too sure as to what exactly you are asking here, it would help if I understood what you're asking.
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, what I seek to establish is that as at February 1993, this particular applicant knew or ought to by all reasonable evidence have known that attacks on the police at that stage were not part of the armed struggle.
ADV GCABASHE: But they were part of what the SDUs did in the various parts of the country? You need to just clarify where exactly?
MR RICHARD: I'm not challenging, I'm not disputing that attacks were, on the police, were part of the SDUs activities, that's I think a matter that's been canvassed in many other hearings.
ADV GCABASHE: Precisely and he was a member of the local SDU in Rockville.
MR RICHARD: But what I am questioning him on is whether as at February 1993 wasn't it appropriate and hadn't it been decided that attacks on police should stop?
ADV GCABASHE: His knowledge of that proposition?
MR RICHARD: Correct, Chairperson.
MR SHAI: And if you can give clarification on the issue of the armed struggle and the SDUs, it's just if Mr Richard is actually pointing questions based on the armed struggle which was suspended in 1990. He himself doesn't actually know at what stage the SDUs started operating and he is now confusing the applicant when he keeps on referring to the armed struggle whereas he is actually referring to the formation of the SDUs. He should be actually giving some sense of clarity on the issue of the armed struggle and the SDUs when posing questions to the applicant to actually avoid the confusion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you'll bear that in mind Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I would like to reply to what my learned colleague has now argued. My knowledge or absence of knowledge is not what is in issue. The onus and duty is on the applicant to discharge what rests on him in terms of the acts in terms of which he applies for amnesty, not on me to assist him. It is therefore for the witness to answer the questions, not for me to provide him information.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, that is so. I'm just saying that in asking the questions which you're entitled to ask, you know, bear in mind the distinction between the armed struggle of uMkhonto weSizwe and the ANC on the one side and the internal situation which has developed around the self defence units which is common cause I'm quite sure or is largely formed by the ANC although to an extent it was also a community initiative. So you'll divorce your - you'll make sure that you divorce those two issues in your questioning?
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I am aware that despite the fact that he says he was an MK operative, he was a member of the local domestic SDUs. There is a distinction between the two and to take his statement that he was an MK operative too would be inappropriate.
To go to the next point, as at February 1993, you were aware that the armed struggle had been suspended?
MR MAESELA: Yes I was aware.
MR RICHARD: Now within the context of the SDUs, to go to my next point, to whom did you report your operations?
MR MAESELA: When it comes to reporting as I've submitted before this Committee that after the death of the late Comrade Molefeng Msini, then Thabiso Tegani took over so as to who he reported to that I've got no knowledge of.
MR RICHARD: And you were content simply to rely on Thabiso Tegani's own words as to what you should or shouldn't do?
MR MAESELA: As a soldier I do not question. The situation at that time was volatile so it was not important for me to question as to who he was reporting to. Now I'm taking care of the very situation that we found ourselves in. What was important was to carry the objectives of the SDUs at that time and as I said, most of the time we took initiative. Instructions were ordered, were given that members of the SAP should be disarmed and the discretion as to who particularly to disarm was solely left upon us so it means we took an initiative the situation dictated.
MR RICHARD: So in 1991 you received an instruction to disarm police and in 1993 despite hearing that the armed struggle had been suspended, you continued disarming police?
MR MAESELA: The struggle was abandoned in 1990, Sir, and as I said because of the preceding situation in after 1990 that led to the formation of the SDUs. Like I said, the situation was dictated by the State through it's security apparatus. Now I do not remember at any time in 1993 whereby the leadership said SDUs should be disbanded particularly SDUs should be disbanded.
MR MAESELA: No one has suggested that there was every an instruction that SDUs be disbanded. It was simply a question of attacks with the potentially lethal consequence against policemen? Now on this particular occasion, who gave you a direction that this particular policeman should be disarmed?
MR MAESELA: Like I said we reconnoitred the movements of the late policeman and we discussed among ourselves and the we came to a collective decision to say this is a legitimate target.
MR RICHARD: So there was a collective decision within your unit to attack this policeman, there was no direction on this occasion from anyone else beyond the general?
MR MAESELA: Like I said it was a collective decision.
MR RICHARD: Now do you know of any of the people within the ANC that Thabiso Tegani was in communication with at that time?
MR MAESELA: Like I said, Sir, when it came to reporting, Thabiso would see to it that he took - he did that and how about, as to how he went about doing that I don't know.
MR RICHARD: You didn't answer my question, my question was very simply and I'll expand on it. How well did you know Thabiso Tegani?
MR MAESELA: I know him very well, I grew up in the same township.
MR RICHARD: And how often a week did you see him?
MR MAESELA: Most of the time we were together.
MR RICHARD: Now during that time together would you have become aware of who were ANC members with who he spoke?
MR MAESELA: I was not aware.
MR RICHARD: Strange. Were you aware of who else he saw besides who else came and visited?
MR MAESELA: Mr Richard, I'll repeat myself to say that there were times when we would take care of other social matters and logically it would mean that it was at that time Thabiso would report as to what was happening around. I was not there.
MR RICHARD: So to continue, to return to the February incident, now unfortunately I don't have a transcript but I do have a copy of a statement by Anna Sitegi in which she says on the morning of the 5th February that year, Mr Sitegi, the deceased, woke up at about 4 o'clock and left for work at 4.30 and returned at 5 p.m. Do you dispute her statement?
MR MAESELA: On the morning of?
MR RICHARD: The 5th February, the date of the incident. She says, to repeat, that on that date he got up at 4 a.m. and prepared himself for work and left at 4.30. He left for Moroko Police Station to collect the SAP truck, usually parked at the police station. Do you dispute that?
MR MAESELA: I will dispute that, Sir, because by the time we came to Mr Sitegi's house the truck was inside the yard. As to maybe he went to fetch it out or no, but by the time we came back.
MR RICHARD: And in one of the statements when you got there you found the truck, to use the words of this document, "idling" in the yard?
MR MAESELA: Yes.
MR RICHARD: So that means you don't know how the truck got there?
MR MAESELA: I don't know when it got there but when we got there it was already there.
MR RICHARD: And then Mrs Sitegi continues and says at about 5 p.m. which is the time given, she heard a gunshots, the singular and plural mixed up, outside and that was
"after my husband came back with a truck and collected his belongings and drove away with the police truck."
Do you dispute what she says there?
MR MAESELA: I cannot dispute what she says.
MR RICHARD: That is from a statement, for the sake of the record, given on the 5th February 1993 at 8.20 a.m.
Now I only have one copy, I won't be referring to it further, I can hand it up.
CHAIRPERSON: We just want to give it a number. Is this the first exhibit?
MR RICHARD: It's the first I've referred to, it's exhibit -according to it, it's got a 2 on it but I'm changing it to A1 - to 1 and I refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of it.
Now before going on to the Bakery delivery van you are aware of who ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) we've got a lot of statements here, Ms Mtanga. This particular one he's quoting from, have we got a copy of that one in our possession too?
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson we do, it's the statement of Anna Sitegi, it's hand-written.
MR RICHARD: It's a document which starts "Moroko CAS980203, Anna Sitegi I.D. No. 1442" and then it starts "I am an adult Black female".
Now for the sake of the record the next statement I'm going to refer to is that of Cedric Sesau Moketse Hlongwane and it's a statement given by him to the South African Police on the 6th February 1993 at Benoni. It's a typed written statement and there I ask the witness to start with, do you know the deponent to this - the signatory to this statement, Mr Hlongwane?
MR MAESELA: Yes I do.
MR RICHARD: Now where I find it interesting is if one goes to page A10 of the statement, at the top of the page Mr Hlongwane says in Afrikaans
"Terwyl ons geloop het 'n polisie trok, geel van kleur, naby ons verby gery"
INTERPRETER: The police drove past us.
MR RICHARD: Sorry, I heard a comment?
INTERPRETER: I was just interpreting into English, the Afrikaans version of it.
MR RICHARD: I'll translate, the statement says: While we were walking a yellow police truck drove past us. Nathaniel then said to Tibetso and Mokgatle they must take the police in.
Now what's relevant about that particular quote from that statement, that morning did a yellow police truck ever drive past you before the shooting at Mr Sitegi's address?
MR MAESELA: No.
MR RICHARD: Now Tibetso, what is his other name?
MR MAESELA: Sidiso Hlongwane.
MR RICHARD: Sidiso Hlongwane? Tibetso?
MR MAESELA: You mean Thabiso.
MR RICHARD: No, I'm saying this statement Mr Hlongwane says Nathaniel then said to Tibetso and Mokgatle - now who is Tibetso?
MR MAESELA: Thabiso is ...(intervention)
MR RICHARD: It is Thabiso and who is Mokgatle?
MR MAESELA: Mogam Mokgatle.
MR RICHARD: Now in this statement other people are mentioned. Nathaniel, is his other name Net?
MR MAESELA: Yes.
MR RICHARD: And we now establish that Thabiso is Thabo and the fourth one is you. Now Frank - right now ...(intervention)
MR SHAI: Objection, he says Thabiso is Thabo and according to our instructions the earlier evidence was Thabiso is Thabiso, Thabo is Thabo.
MR RICHARD: Thabiso is the same Thabitso?
MR MAESELA: It was misspelt, it's Thabiso.
MR RICHARD: Now from your evidence yesterday you stated that Thabiso was the one who was on the other side of the wall when a shot was fired?
MR MAESELA: Nathaniel, I was with Thabiso - when I say we split into two groups, I meant I was with Thabiso and Nathaniel was with Sediso and Frank.
MR RICHARD: Now who was on the other side of the wall who you couldn't see when a shot went off near the truck?
MR MAESELA: Oh, now you're talking the incident at Mr Sitegi's house?
MR RICHARD: Yes.
MR MAESELA: Oh, Thabiso went first.
MR RICHARD: So I also have a statement from Mr - that's Thabiso Tekane where, before making the statement to the South African Police, he said in Afrikaans and I'll translate it
In answer to the question:
"What benefits would you get from making a statement?"
He said that:
"My punishment would be lighter and I will get amnesty. I am of the intention to apply for amnesty."
Isn't it correct that all of you at the time of making the statements to the police in 1993 hoped to get amnesty?
MR MAESELA: Thabiso was only arrested 1995 if I'm not mistaken, long after I was in prison.
MR RICHARD: In fact this statement is made on the 13th March 1997?
MR MAESELA: Yes, he was only arrested '95/'96. I think he can verify it.
MR RICHARD: So the point I'm coming to is that when Thabiso made this statement, if everything he said was true and he was acting with a political motive and in compliance of the Act, he had nothing to really fear, so he would be telling the truth, is it not correct?
MR MAESELA: He was in the hands of the police at that time and as far as I know Thabiso and Nathaniel were the most wanted members of this unit by the police and so anything could have happened, intimidations, anything could have happened when he made this statement.
MR RICHARD: But is it not correct and I don't believe there could be any dispute about it that as at March 1997, the Truth Commission process had commenced?
MR MAESELA: Yes it had.
MR RICHARD: And when Thabiso made this statement, if everything he said in it was true and correct and complied with the Act, he had nothing to fear, he would tell the truth?
MR MAESELA: I don't think the statement made by Thabiso was.
MR RICHARD: So that means you wouldn't accept what Thabiso said in this statement as necessarily the truth?
MR MAESELA: I would say so.
MR RICHARD: Now the next question I ask is the second applicant, Mashene Eric N Tekane, of those various names that I've read out, which name corresponds to him? It's not Thabiso, it's not Nathaniel, it's not yours, it's not Frank?
MR MAESELA: What are the names?
MR RICHARD: In Mr Hlongwane's statement he says on the 5th February 1993 his friend, Frank Tekane came to his house in Rockville and asked him to come to the Alcove Stadium in Soweto. When he came out there was Frank and three of his brothers, Thabiso, Nathaniel and what we now establish to be you? Now who is Mashene?
MR MAESELA: That's Nathaniel, that's his Sotho name, Mashene is his Sotho name.
MR RICHARD: So may I ask in what respects did your evidence of the incident in court differ because I do not have a copy of your evidence from what you say in this particular amnesty application?
MR MAESELA: Like I said, the statement that I made that that confession was made under duress so whatever is contained in that confession was made unwillingly even though I did concede to the murder of Mr Sitegi but the context of that confession in itself was made under duress.
MR RICHARD: My question is what was your defence in the high court?
MR MAESELA: Was my defence?
MR RICHARD: Yes.
MR MAESELA: My defence was that I was not there when the incident happened.
MR RICHARD: My next question is, compared to the confession you made to what you say today what differences are there?
MR MAESELA: The difference is that today I'm making a full disclosure of all the relevant facts surrounding this case and on my confession there well I did not make a full disclosure because of the situation at the time, I was under the - there were the police, the very people that we were fighting against.
MR RICHARD: Now before going on to the bakery van, I remind you that yesterday that you said that you had a desire not to kill the policeman, is that correct?
MR MAESELA: It is so.
MR RICHARD: Now if you had not wanted to kill the policeman what could you have done to prevent him being shot?
MR MAESELA: I've explained on Monday that the objective was to disarm the deceased and that our plan was to point firearms and then disarm him of his office service pistol but what happened there at the scene of that incident let to an accident being committed.
MR RICHARD: Did the deceased ever shoot at you?
MR MAESELA: I found out later that the person who shot was Thabiso but from what was happening at the scene of this incident as I've explained before this Honourable Committee is that after that shot went off I was unsure as to who between Thabiso and the deceased fired the shot and I explained again that my actions were out of compulsion. After seeing the truck driving past and I couldn't see Thabiso anywhere around, what came to my mind was that he might have been shot and like I said we never had a plan B as to if ever this plan A failed then what are we going to do? Confusion was reigning amongst us so we acted compulsively.
MR RICHARD: I understand what you say happened on that morning but my question is, is it not so that no one of you had any need to take a firearm and to fire it, you could have simply let the truck drive away?
MR MAESELA: A shot was fired, a shot that caused confusion and I could not see around that wall as to what was happening around that wall.
MR RICHARD: Sir, I'm going to leave it after this proposition. My proposition is that in reality while it is true that you could not see what Thabiso was doing on the other side of the wall, taking the totality of the circumstances prevailing that morning, there was no need for anyone ever to pull a trigger if you had not intended to kill the policeman?
MR MAESELA: If we are on a mission to a disarm a firearm and it so happens that member of the SAP pulls a firearm with the intention of shooting at us at that stage now we are left with no option.
MR RICHARD: However, there is no evidence ex what you saw that the deceased ever pulled out a firearm?
MR MAESELA: A shot was fired, I'll explain again. After that shot was fired because we could not see as to what was happening around that wall we did not know, personally I did not know as to who fired that shot. It might have been the deceased, it might have been Thabiso but I was not sure, I could not see. Immediately after that shot was fired the truck pulled away.
MR RICHARD: Let's proceed onto the incident outside the Terminus Cafe. Now you were present at your trial and none of us were there. You heard Bheki Mabusa, the driver of the truck give evidence, did you not?
MR MAESELA: Yes in court I did.
MR RICHARD: Did you dispute any of his evidence in reality?
MR MAESELA: Coming to that incident Mr Davids, it is not contained and in my confession and as to - in fact I never disputed it because I was not brought into the box to dispute anything that they said. I was never identified as one of the people.
MR RICHARD: My question is far simpler than that. Were you in court when Mr Bheki Mabusa gave evidence?
MR MAESELA: Yes I was in court.
MR RICHARD: Did you disagree with anything he said?
MR MAESELA: I could not bring myself to disagree because they had never pointed me out in the I.D. parade.
MR RICHARD: I put it to you that Mr Mabusa said quite honestly in his statement to the police it was dark, he couldn't see you and didn't attempt to identify you. He described what happened. My question is do you dispute his description ...(intervention)
MR SHAI: Objection. I think this line of questioning is actually totally irrelevant. First of all he says to Mr Richard because he was not implicated by the evidence of whoever gave evidence as far as the delivery van is concerned, that piece of evidence was not contested. So contesting the evidence would have actually led to the implication of the applicant himself. So as to why learned colleague is asking why he never contested that piece of evidence, I don't think it's relevant looked at, at the time of the trial itself, with due respect.
ADV DE JAGER: You've got the statement of Mr Bheki Mabusa? I can't see whether it's Mabusa. I think he's got it in his possession. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask him whether he is disputing anything in the statement?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is off.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) have disputed anything, he would immediately destroy his alibi?
MR RICHARD: My question is being misunderstood, forgive me Chairperson. I'm not asking what cross-examination his counsel put the driver of the truck through, my question is far simpler. Did he hear the evidence and when Mr Mabusa described his side of the incident, does he or does he not agree with Mr Mabusa's description. I'm not asking him about the cross-examination and the versions that were put to Mr Mabusa if any.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Maesela, can you still remember everything that this driver said?
MR MAESELA: Yes it was five, six years back, Honourable Chairman and I cannot recall as to everything that was said in court.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you know at this stage tell us whether you agree or disagree to his testimony or not or have you forgotten what it was all about? I'm talking about his evidence in court, we don't know what he said but ...(intervention)
MR MAESELA: As to whether I agreed?
CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us that at all at this stage?
MR MAESELA: Mr Chairman, I don't know what to say because ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well is your answer that you simply can't remember what he said?
MR MAESELA: Coming to Mr Mabusa's statement, nothing was put to me in court if I still remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no don't worry about the statement, I'm not sure to what extent the statement is going to feature in this thing now but the question at the moment relates to what he said in court, what this driver said in court, Mr Mabusa. Now you say you can't really remember what he said?
MR MAESELA: I can't remember what he said Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say whether you agree of disagree with it?
MR MAESELA: For now I cannot say Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Yes Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: Now I continue. If the general description of what happened to the five people in the bread delivery truck went along these lines and I'm not going to label the four points. They were stopped outside the terminus cafe, the unloading of the bread commenced and a shot was fired at them. Do you dispute that?
MR MAESELA: I've explained before this Honourable Committee that we split into - immediately after we heard the sound of the truck we split into two groups and I was with Thabiso at that time so what happened there was that immediately after we saw the truck and we identified it as a bakery truck and then immediately we abandoned the position so as we were going away a shot was fired and we reacted. By the time we reacted that was when Nathaniel and the two other guys came running to us and explained as to what happened there.
MR RICHARD: Now who fired the shot, was it the people in the truck or one of your group?
MR MAESELA: According to my understanding the security of that truck fired a shot first then and then Nathaniel replied back.
MR RICHARD: That is incorrect. In all the statements before me, a shot was fired at them and then a fire fight started during the course of which according to the various statements a number of shots were fired. The truck was damaged.
MR MAESELA: I cannot say as to what happened, I was not there. So as to who shot first I don't know.
MR RICHARD: Now why if the shot was first from you, was the shot ever shot at the truck because the truck was not a target, the police were a target?
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Richard, are you sure you want to reserve that question for Natu who is an applicant, he is the one who knows about that incident. He simply reported to this applicant on what did occur and I don't think this applicant is in a position to assist you.
MR RICHARD: Very well, without the record it's very difficult for me to take it anywhere further except to ask the questions I have.
Now in relation to Oupa Meremi, is he going to give evidence or not, have you called him?
MR MAESELA: Actually there was a time when I had a meeting with Mr Maraleng and he is aware of this hearing.
MR RICHARD: It's not for me to build your case for you, my question is do you intend to call him as a witness to support your statements?
MR MAESELA: Personally, I don't intend calling him.
MR RICHARD: Why not?
MR MAESELA: I don't see what purpose would it serve to call Mr Maraleng because by mentioning his name in this hearing, I don't think - it's not a lie what I've said about Mr Maraleng.
MR RICHARD: All we have is your own word for it but it would be very easy for somebody to say so and so told me this. If you have a witness available to you to corroborate your version surely its incumbent on you to prove your case?
In due course I'll argue that the fact that he is not called by you means that you're lying?
MR SHAI: Objection. May I just put it across that we actually discuss the said issue around Mr Maraleng with my learned colleague and the evidence leader and we actually tried to contact Mr Oupa Maraleng and to actually get hold of him which is as difficult as actually finding a needle in some hay and she actually indicated to us that she may try and is it Brian Koopedi, to actually contact this Oupa Maraleng because he knows how to actually get hold of him. Not that it's an issue that we never pursued. That was pursued but it is actually difficult to get hold of these people.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we've noticed that, any case you have indicated to the witness what argument you would be raising. Yes proceed?
MR RICHARD: I have given the witness an opportunity to be aware of what will be said later. No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Mtanga, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, thank you.
MS MTANGA: Yes Chairperson, thank you.
Mr Maesela, on page 204 of the bundle, paragraph 5.8.
MR MAESELA: Paragraph?
MS MTANGA: 5.8, the last paragraph.
MR MAESELA: 5.8, yes.
MS MTANGA: Okay, you indicated that you were trained by Oupa Maraleng and that he further gave you instructions to disarm police. When was this?
MR MAESELA: I was in 1991.
MS MTANGA: And where did the training take place?
MR MAESELA: It took place at the back rooms of the late Molefeng Msing's parent's home.
MS MTANGA: Where is that?
MR MAESELA: It's in Rockville.
MS MTANGA: And further on, page 15, paragraph 7.4, you stated that the attacks from the hostel dwellers ...(indistinct) that the police became less frequent and therefore such decrease prompted a switch over to other objectives of the SDUs, these the disarming of the police. What I would like to know from you, what purpose would be served by the disarming of the police in the light of what you've said there that the attacks on the hostels had decreased?
MR MAESELA: As we shall recall the situation at the time was such that like I've stated 7.5, in context that the degrees of attacks from hostel dwellers did not really reduce the level of violence. Rather the matter of third force operation became more sophisticated and notifiably more mobile so these very operations by third force were assisted by members of the police in that at times whereby there were drive by shootings in the locations from these unseen forces, the police would overlook these actions but at a time when we took action against the police then the police would definitely take action against us so in this instance it was indisputable that the police themselves were part and parcel of this whole violence rather than being the custodians of peace they were the enemies of peace themselves.
MS MTANGA: What I want to know is by taking their weapons or firearms what were you going to achieve by doing that?
MR MAESELA: Like I've stated that by disarming the police of their weapons it would demoralise them in the long run and at the same time these weapons would be brought in and given to some of the trainees so as the enhance the protection of the masses from the very attacks by these forces.
MS MTANGA: No further questions Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MTANGA
ADV DE JAGER: I can follow your motivation for the robbery. You wanted to get a firearm and you wanted to use that for self defence or whatever. You're applying for amnesty for murder?
MR MAESELA: Yes Sir.
ADV DE JAGER: And robbery is that correct?
MR MAESELA: Yes, the attempted ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: The attempted robbery, sorry.
MR MAESELA: And as well as for the possession of the firearm and ammunition.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. What's a problem for me is you told us there was no motive to murder?
MR MAESELA: Yes Sir.
ADV DE JAGER: Now if there was no motive to murder, how could there be a political objective for the murder?
MR MAESELA: The Honourable Mr Chair, I've tried to explain the events that led to the murder of Mr Sitegi and in the first place we identified him as a legitimate target as he was a member of the SAP and then during the course of this incident, shots were fired and that led to the loss of life, thus murder was committed. It was not our intention to murder - that is this Mr Sitegi.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, okay I've got your answer. Perhaps your counsel could also assist me in solving this problem. The bakery van, were there any security guards there with the bakery van?
MR MAESELA: Normally there are security guards who ...
ADV DE JAGER: They're carrying weapons too?
MR MAESELA: Normally they do, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And you needed weapons for self-protection?
MR MAESELA: Yes we needed weapons but not from ......(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Why not?
MR MAESELA: I should think normally people who are called in to guard these bakeries from private security companies so in a sense they are not legitimate members of the State but they are just security personnel of a private company.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but you're not targeting them as such in the sense of that you want to kill them, you only want weapons and wasn't the idea to get weapons wherever you can?
MR MAESELA: No, specifically from the security apparatus of the State.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, so it wasn't your objective to get weapons from people not in the employ of the State in the sense of the security forces, other people from the security forces?
MR MAESELA: No Sir, not members of - not any civilians but specifically members of the State because the primary objective was to destroy the apartheid State and it's security apparatus.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja but in this attempted robbery, the objective was to protect your own people against attacks and that was why you need the weapons?
MR MAESELA: Yes Sir.
ADV DE JAGER: If it wasn't for that you wouldn't have robbed this policeman?
MR MAESELA: If it wasn't for that - in fact the Honourable Chairperson, I cannot understand clearly?
ADV DE JAGER: Suppose he didn't have a weapon at all, this policeman, you walked there and you could see he didn't have a weapon on him?
MR MAESELA: Yes then we wouldn't have attacked him.
ADV DE JAGER: Then you wouldn't have attacked?
MR MAESELA: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Because your objective was to get a weapon not to do anything to the policeman?
MR MAESELA: Yes that's true, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Shai?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAI: Your main objective in actually attacking the policeman, was it to take the firearm away from him, you know that it - or let me just put it in this way, was it to disarm him or was it to arm your fellow ...(indistinct). What was the main objective?
MR MAESELA: The objective was two fold and that it was to disarm to take away to disarm the weapons from the deceased as well as to arm other members of the SDU's with this particular weapon.
MR SHAI: The question of the confessions that you also made to the police, under what name was this confession taken from you?
MR MAESELA: I was coerced into signing my name as M Tekane even if the police had a copy of my I.D. with them they still maintained that I was telling lies and so they made me sign M Tekane on that confession.
MR SHAI: What would have been the consequences of you telling the police that you were actually a member of the ANC and you were actually acting under the instructions from the ANC leadership?
MR MAESELA: The consequences would be that such that I would even be killed by the very police because these were the people that we were fighting against and they knew very well that people like us were viewed before their eyes as enemies so the consequences would lead maybe even to death.
MR SHAI: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHAI
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Maesela, so you're saying that you are not related to the Tekane's at all?
MR MAESELA: No I am not related at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Maesela, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the adjournment for 30 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
